On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 06:00:08PM -0300, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > what if the bug fix includes changes in behavior that for some users is > considered a bug in itself? (like how it happened at first with the > issue of auto-granted permissions permanency being abused, where the > initial proposal of simply auto-revoking hen the avatar stands up would > break content that produced a graceful transition from sitting to > standing up by animating the avatar right after it stopped being sat on > the prim)
If it really breaks a lot of content then the bug was apparently a feature ;). In that case it might be considered undesirable to "fix" the bug as if it never existed; some backwards compatibility might be needed. However, I don't think that that should be very much the concern of Linden Lab. If the consensus on the list is that a bug should be fixed even if it breaks existing content then we have apparently a reason for that. Linden Lab (read: merov) should foremost look at the extra work that it will create to keep the internal repository in sync with a snowglobe that has this feature / bug fix. If Linden Lab does not want the bug fix as you decribe, then I think the best approach is to try and convince the committer who offered to put time into fixing it, to do it in a different way, so that his patch WILL be accepted in the official viewer. -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
