Hi, -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Von: "Jörg Jahnke" <[email protected]>
> > > > And once again the nice excuse :) > Nope. It is not "the" excuse since "the" excuse in your initial mail > referred to the explanation of software containing bugs, and it was not > an "excuse" but meant to be an explanation why we have quite a lot of > older bugs. If you don't want others to deal with your subject, then > just go on like this... The fact that Software will always contain bugs does not automatically mean, there is no way to fix the known bugs. It is no full explanation (as it is no full explanation that you get wet feet because your ship leaks - the full explanation is that the ship leaks and the leaks get neither fixed nor is the rate of getting the water out high enough.) Btw. I don't want others to deal "with my subject". I want others to think about how we can improve the quality management within OOo. And this is not just my subject. > > All this is true - but does the fact that we should fix "important > > bugs first" justify that the others get (almost) never fixed? > Yes it does. > > > > Wouldn't it more efficient, if we fix some minor bugs if we are > > going to fix important bugs in the same are anyway? > AFAIK this is already the case if the developer thinks the fix has a low > risk involved. This is true in some cases - for sure. In many other I don't think. Herbert Duerr gave a perfect example why - because many bugs reports are even not in a state where the risk can be estimated. To get more issues to such a state, it would (imo) be helpfull to have some more integrated teams of QA and developers. André -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
