I'm just throwing ideas around...
I don't think that if something is difficult to test, it shouldn't be
implemented. It would be the same as saying that to bake is too difficult,
so I'll just go without the cake. I do, however, agree with the fact that if
you get different versions of Markdown
* Jurgens du Toit [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-21 09:05]:
I don't think that if something is difficult to test, it
shouldn't be implemented.
You mean it’s fine for people to give you software that might or
might not work, and they don’t know which? What happens if you
report a bug and they can’t
I mean that difficulty to test must not impair the development process.
Yes, sure, don't roll out software that hasn't been tested, but, as Markdown
is issued under an open source license, there's who knows how many people
who might want the untested functionality, and who will be willing to test
I think the answers you're getting here will make more sense if you re-
read John Gruber's description of Markdown's history and purpose, at
daringfireball.net.
On 21 Jul 2008, at 6:32 AM, Jurgens du Toit wrote:
I mean that difficulty to test must not impair the development
process.
Yes,
Le 2008-07-21 à 6:32, Jurgens du Toit a écrit :
I mean that difficulty to test must not impair the development
process.
Yes, sure, don't roll out software that hasn't been tested, but, as
Markdown
is issued under an open source license, there's who knows how many
people
who might want the
