Hi Andrew,
> I would think that if the defect merited the allocation of the developrs > time to implement the fix it merits the time to be tested to the extent > needed for release. The fact will remain that only the development > staff involved can judge what that effort really is. > > Look at it this way, was it really the best allocation of the developers > time - a very tight resource, I hae no doubt, if the resoures to do what > is necessary to get the fruits of their effort out to the users is not > also made available? I could imagine various reason why a bug is fixed though it's targeted for "Later", amongst them - "it was fun, and I still needed my weekly fun on Friday" :) - while investigating how serious this issue is, I immediately found a fix, and it would have been waste to not check it in - I stumbled upon this during completely unrelated work, and fixed it by passing All of this may justify that the fix is still *made*, but not yet that it's include in 2.0.x. > But - Speaking of useful allocation of time, - enough of this subject > for me perhaps. Just slip on into > Issuzilla and target it for 2.0.3..no one will notice that you did it... > ;-) :) I doubt that. You don't imagine how strict 2.0.x targets can be handled by some people ;) (not to mention that I still didn't look at the issue which caused all this, still just dicussing the more general aspects) Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
