James Clash wrote: > S�ren Kuklau wrote: > >> James Clash wrote: >> >>> Good to hear - but what I still don't unterstand is the fact that >>> the regression has been reported on 2001-12-27 and although this >>> regression is having a great impact it hasn't been fixed for 0.9.8 ?! >> >> >> >> Because it's not at all trivial to fix that. >> > > I understand, but Jesup Randell has provided a patch on the day of > reporting, so a month for investigation/coding should have been enough > for thoroughly testing and adapting - especially for a new milestone > release this shouldn't have happened. > > -- > James >
If this bug involved a less complex solution, yes a month might have been enough time. Obviously this bug is comples, and from some of the bug discussions I have heard still actively being worked on. From what I understan, the developers want this bug fixed correctly the first time, not simply an imperfect patch which sort of works. I believe it will be fixed by 1.0. I guess I have faith in the good work being done by the developers.
