On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 07:57:52PM +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:46:27PM -0500, Michael Lucas wrote: > > > > I'm questing wether we still should bring new shit in. The number of bugs we > > > found recently is scary, and the new shit needs serious testing. And adding > > > _more_ features is for sure not helpfull. > > > > As a user, please: stability and correctness before new cool stuff. > > We've been making a lot of larger changes in the past weeks, and we'll > need time to test them carefully, I agree. > > But you can't measure the added complexity of a patch by counting its > lines. This particular change would only modify a handful of lines of > code that executes when the new feature is not used. It's easily > verified that it doesn't break existing functionality. And verifying > that has the highest priority. > > Yes, the newly added code is larger, but the point is that it's only > executed when you actually use the address tables. If it makes it into > the next release, even the worst bugs in the new code don't bite you if > you're not using the new feature. > > It's hard to explain, but the skip step calculation change (which was > only 40 lines or so) was more delicate than this patch would be. We'll > have to discuss it, I guess :) > > Daniel
Didn't mean to imply you don't test. You lot are quite responsive. That was just a general plea for sanity. It's easy for people to get caught up in Cool Stuff, and forget about Cool *Working* Stuff. If working isn't one of your requirements, I have a Red Hat CDROM for you... ==ml -- Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons Absolute BSD: http://www.AbsoluteBSD.com/
