On 11/6/06, Niklas Nebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> On 11/3/06, Mathias Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Let's put it that way: it should be possible to integrate something even
>> if the original goal laid out in the spec wasn't reached but the result
>> is "good enough". "Good enough" means that we could live with it even if
>> nothing was changed until the release date. This is something you always
>> must take into account, especially in case of community development.
> ...
>> We never should accept unfinished UI work in a way that parts of the
>> necessary functionality *willingly* don't work to a degree that users
>> will expect in a professional application. This can't be described by a
>> fixed percentage but I assume that it can be judged with common sense.
>> If developer, QA and other participants agree that it's good enough,
>> then let's take it.
>
> I like the way you put it. This is essentially what I was trying to
> say in my post. Looks like we're on the same page here.
But note how "the original goal laid out in the spec wasn't reached"
implies that there was a spec to begin with.
Ah, nice catch. :-) Obviously my eyes quickly skipped over that sentence.
Jokes aside, I would change that sentence to "the original goal laid
out wasn't reached" (leave out the spec part). This doesn't mean that
we can't use the spec, but means that the sentence should cover cases
where the spec wasn't used (e.g. the intended behavior may have been
laid out in the issue, but not necessarily in the form of a
specification document).
Kohei
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
