> No the intent was not to attack, but to make sure the developer
> focusses on testing what he commits.
That is not how others perceived it. If your intent is to simply report a
defect, then we need to have a talk about inter-personal communication.
Perhaps we need to talk about how to, and how not to, report defects similar
to the Eric Raymond paper on how to ask questions.
> If it works all is good.
No, all is not good. Aaron isn't the only person who is offended enough to
consider leaving the project because of the bickering. THAT is the damage,
not some minor defect in protocol handling.
> This is the 3rd issue that completly breaks NNTP Server that I have found
so far.
> Testing is expected behaviour ...
And was expected in October. According to you, this is such a obvious issue
that any client test in that time frame should have shown it. Apparently,
our users don't use NNTP, otherwise didn't encounter this issue, or didn't
care enough about NNTP to report it. Clearly, though, James needs a
comprehensive test suite to aid in testing (regression and otherwise). You
can add this as another test case.
At some point you have to freeze the code, test it, and keep it closed so
that you don't have to go back through testing all over again. We should
not take so long to get out a release, and we should be able to put out bug
fix releases as necessary.
Actually, there are other less critical flaws in NNTP, one of which is in
Bugzilla. I believe that fixes exist and are pending the v2.1 release. So
the quicker we ship this update, the quicker we can get to other issues.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
