> From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:59:10 -0400 > Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It seems that you and I define "serious" in a different way. My > criterion says that a bug where an important feature does something > that is indisputably wrong and that causes real trouble is a serious > bug.
While such bugs create a well-understood motivation for fixing them, we should always weigh that against the possibility of introducing new and exciting bugs into an already very stable code base, and delaying an already long overdue release. When such a risk is real (as in this case, since we are talking about a change in the guts of a general purpose display code), we should, as a counter-balance, estimate the risk of someone tripping on the original bug. If that latter risk is low (as it is in this case, as evidenced by the 2-year period passed since the commit of the buggy code), we should seriously consider leaving the bug alone until after the release. Frankly, I'm astonished that I need to explain such truisms that are well known to anyone who has ever managed a software release, present company included. _______________________________________________ emacs-pretest-bug mailing list emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-pretest-bug
