[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. >
This is causing some broad range of problems and is checked-in hopefully real soon. Anyway how complex a fixing is, some sort of fixing should have also go into 0.9.8 -- James
