Hallo, * intrigeri [Sun, Jan 27 2013, 03:41:49PM]: > > Well, (no offense implied) I am often puzzled at how people ask for > > "just the minimal fix" WRT complex software. > > I acknowledge it is sometimes the case that a minimal fix is hard to > extract, but it's also, quite often, pretty easy. I don't know this > specific code, so I was asking. > > > It's like asking the garage guy: please replace my brake pads but > > DON'T remove the wheels!!11 > > Well, it's not my car, I'm not your client, and I'm not asking you to > do work that will only benefit me, so I don't think this comparison > fits the current situation very well. I'll assume good faith and > ignore the feelings this comparison triggers in me. ... > a minimal fix is one of the most often applied solution in this kind > of situation. Hence, I was merely asking if you had *considered* it...
C'mon, this comparison was just made up to demonstrate that the usual dogma "everything with more than a couple of diff chunks is heavy development and is therefore evil" does not fit all situations. My decission for the bug mentioned before was obvious. It wasn't clear where the problem originates, the suspected code was messy because of various extensions and workarounds over time and remote debugging would have become complicated. I could have spent a lot of time on code reviewing without useful results or take a weekend to redesign the process and make it robust and easier debuggable in future. And IMHO it was the right decission because only a couple of related bugs were discovered afterwards which were easy to analyze and easy to fix. Since wheezy-backports have been mentioned in this BR: it's possible but something I would prefer not to use. I am biased, of course, but IMO it's just a workaround which use could be avoided here. Regards, Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
