> Andrew, because Peter thinks his keyword is really useful I'm giving you
> a list of bugs that Peter has determined to be low risk (they're not,
Peter never said that they were low risk. In fact, he has
repeatedly said that they were only suggestions and that, since he's
not a programmer (something else he's said repeatedly), it was up to
those who are programmers to tell him if they are low risk or not.
The only thing he's said is that he *believes* that they *might* be
low risk.
Have you looked at these bugs? If you haven't then you are
pointing a newcomer towards bugs that may, in fact, be high risk.
> at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68156 Pretend that they
> had Peter's keyword on them.
Also as Peter has said repeatedly, the existence of the keyword, in
and of itself, will do nothing for the system. It is only a
necessary, but not sufficient, condition for an improvement based upon
its existence. Once it exists then further things would also have to
be done in order for it to be useful.
I'm not sure that I agree that the keyword scheme is the way to go
(although I don't really disagree either at this point), however it's
a concrete example of a possible way of improving things that very few
people here have actually proposed. With the exception of Matthew
Thomas' excellent critique, and my own meager alternative suggestions,
nobody else has offered anything of substance as an alternative to the
keyword idea - resorting, instead, to simple tautologies of "it's
wrong because it's wrong," or "it's wrong because I know what I'm
doing and I say it's wrong." While it may in fact BE wrong, I'm still
looking for other ideas that are RIGHT. <grin>
Jason.
