On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Don Armstrong wrote: >> So long as we have an implementation which works for the vast >> majority of cases we can file bugs to make it work for the few >> cases where it doesn't. (Or the output can just be slightly broken >> in those cases; it's not like that's a huge problem.) > > IMHO this whole discussion is the problem. I just wanted to define > rules to enable us filing bugs.
There's no point to defining rules without a working implementation, because we don't know what the rules should be. Once there is a working implementation that works for a reasonable majority of the descriptions, we can define rules based on the implementation, and then file bugs against those few descriptions which are problematic according to the rules. > The discussion just runs circles about the next step before doing > the first. What you appear to be calling the next step (getting a working implementation) is actually the first step from my perspective (and is presumably shared by others.) Don Armstrong -- "A one-question geek test. If you get the joke, you're a geek: Seen on a California license plate on a VW Beetle: 'FEATURE'..." -- Joshua D. Wachs - Natural Intelligence, Inc. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org