Michael>One of the other side effects in this case Michael>seems to be (without having examined the technical merit of either Michael>solution) that the fix which was ultimately committed still didn't solve Michael>the original issue.
I'm afraid you did are wrong here. My first commit implemented exactly one test. I removed @Ignored from the test and implemented a fix. It turned out Zoltan crafted more complex test that identified a bug in the v1 of the implementation. Note: that was a new test, and it was not included in PR707. Note: there are millions of test cases missing, and I know the proper way to cover it. However, it looks like everybody here likes "one test per issue" approach more, so I follow it somehow: I unlock a single test, so everybody is happy. Michael>In this case, it seems like Zoltan was still willing to help provide a solution AFAIK, no-one (including Zoltan) cares to suggest a test case to defeat current code in master. I treat that as "the feature is good enough". Michael>see the last activity on both of those before the period of inactivity was by Zoltan My point here is 1) It takes ~30 min to "develop+test" the fix 2) PR707 goes in opposite direction: it disables the optimization instead of just unlocking a single @Ignore test 3) The bug does bother me ==> I just fix it and merge it. On top of that, I see nothing I could reuse from PR707, so I had to just discard it. Vladimir
