Bruce is making some good points here. I'm glad he's been active in this discussion. I don't currently have much time to be real active in this discussion.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, CVBruce <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand your point Chip, but couldn't you say the same thing for V4 > in general? > Indeed you can say the same thing for the ooRexx project in general. I'm going to use this opportunity to refer back to some of Chip's other e-mails, hope that's okay. Earlier Chip wrote: "There was indeed a change to the 'Call' search order between 3.2.0 and 4.0.0. I was able to track it as far back as an SVN update on 6Feb09 to the main/trunk/CHANGES document. It listed the RFE "1666636 - Add source of caller to function search order" but that was the end of the trail. I can find no documentation for "1666636" anywhere." If you look up the 1666636 item in the Request for Enhancement tracker you can see that Rick opened it and stated the rational for it. He opened it in February of 2007 and implemented it in August 2008. That gave anyone, that wanted to make the effort, the opportunity to discuss it for about a year and a half. You can see that Rony was in favor of it, he just was curious as to where it would be put in the search order. I could have objected to it, but I didn't. Anyone can subscribe to the SVN, Bug, RFE, and similar lists and track every single thing the developers are doing. Anyone can subscribe to the developers list and discuss these things as they are done / as they appear. Anyone could have spoke up when Rick committed the implementation. The final release wasn't done until around August 2009, which gave anyone about a year to object to the change. Anything committed can be easily rolled back. So, no one spoke up, no one objected, the change was finalized by the release of 4.0.0. This a good discussion Chip, the above is just meant to give a little context to what happened. > > I don't see how the lack of a prior design document should keep us from > discussing how this particular bug request should be handled. > Exactly. We should discuss how the bug report should be handled. Especially since it's not real clear if it is or is not a bug. > > I would vote that this isn't a bug, but working as documented. I would > offer to change this bug into an enhancement request. > If it is now working as documented, then I would agree it's probably not a bug. Although we have two changes here. The implementation of RFE 1666636 and the fix of Bug 2978925. The fix for bug 2978925 definitely changed the behaviour from 4.0.1 to 4.1.0. I haven't had the time to check behavior between 3.2.0 and 4.0.0. And I haven't given the exact details here a lot of deep thought. So, it's not entirely clear where we are at here. Did the implementation of RFE 1666636 change existing, *documented* behavior? Was the implementation of RFE 1666636 not completely correct so it needed the 2978925 bug fix to match the documentation? Or did the implementation of RFE 1666636 have an unintended consequence that introduced bug 2978925? > ... And besides, if you put Brad Pitt's photo on my Facebook page, no one > would notice the difference, since I'm mistaken for him quite often. ;-) > I had heard that, Bruce, that you were often mistaken for Brad Pitt. -- Mark Miesfeld
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your Android app more play: Bring it to the BlackBerry PlayBook in minutes. BlackBerry App World™ now supports Android™ Apps for the BlackBerry® PlayBook™. Discover just how easy and simple it is! http://p.sf.net/sfu/android-dev2dev
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
