Re: [api-dev] Optional Parameters in Starbasic function call

[Andrew Jensen]

Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: Hi Bernard, I can't understand this. If it's fixed it should be integrated ASAP, why keep it OOo Later ? It was fixed in August 2005, and could have been integrated in 2.0.1. I queried IssueZilla for : RESOLVED and FIXED and OOo Later and Creation date between 2005-01-01 and now. Result : 75 issues ! What are you developers waiting for ? More duplicate reports ? More disappointed users ? I can't talk about the concrete issue here, but let me say a general word about those other 74 ... Every bug fix has the potential of a regression. While we all try our best to avoid this, reality shows that a certain percentage of bug fixes causes a new bug. Because of this, there are restrictions on what kind (and how many) fixes we put into the "maintainance releases" such as 2.0.x. Those releases are expected to improve the product, not to decrease its quality. We simply do not want to take the risk associated with all the bug fixes we could have (and potentially, we *could* have much more than those 75, if we wanted to), at least not for 2.0.x. Ciao Frank Frank I understand your point about not releasing every fix possible in every maintenance release as a form of risk management. I also did a quick query off IssueZilla finding 108 defects marked for target of 2.0.2 that have been changed to resolved in the last 369 days ( excluding, as best I could, those dealing solely with documentation [203 if I query everything]). Also 9 enhancements? So, of course you guys aren't just loafing. Further, I suppose it is reasonable that a person should make note of the fact that a defect marked as resolved but not given a target milestone is not in the queue to be released. But Bernard has a very valid point also. This is an issue that has been such for over 18 months, most of the time waiting for a developer to get to it. Let me rephrase that, waiting for a developers time to become available.  This included releases from 1.0.0 - 2.0.1. Hardly just maintenance releases. Given the overall length of time involved it is reasonable to expect that retarding release once it is fixed, and one would asume has passed unit and regresson testing, is not going to go over well. If I might make a suggestion, when weighing the risk/benefit factors - length of time that the issue has been open be taken into account. In a situation like this if a fix is deemed to risky for release - at least try and see if a reasonable target can be set. The ambiguity of OOLater for an 18 month fix is a bit much. Final point, they are called maintanence releases because they incorporate fixes to known defects. Holding up a release is not the only way to mitigate risk, some patches require more regresson testing then others, but they still need to go out the door at some point. Just my opinion. Drew