launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

["Francis J. Lacoste" <francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12-04-12 07:14 PM, Robert Collins wrote:

> That said, the situation here, as I see it is:
>  - there is a known defect *in our stack*
>  - if that defect was fixed, your scenario would work (the collection
> would naturally DTRT)
>  - fixing the defect should not be particularly large or onerous, for
> all that it may be unfamiliar territory.
> 
> And you're proposing to not fix the defect, but instead propogate a
workaround.
>
> This doesn't make sense to me, it keeps the cost of maintenance and
> ongoing development higher.
>
> If the cost of fixing the underlying defect was going to be very high,
> it would be a different matter.
>
I think I disagree, it's a couple of days work at least for someone
familiar with all the indirect coupling going on.

So I think we can safely move forward with the existing pattern and the
very marginal maintenance cost upgrade.

Especially, since he proposed fixing another bug (the load() one which
is plaguing a lot of users).


-- 
Francis J. Lacoste
francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature