Martin Owens wrote:Hopefully you didn't mean that we'd gladdy sacrifice elegance of code and flexibility of programming structure in order to artificially restrict the expressed options. Which is how I read your reply at first. Elegance? No. Options? Perhaps. Every code path needs tests. We have a relatively low level of quality in free software *because* we don't test our code. I know the ideology about many eyes etc, but the reality is somewhat different - there's a lot of crappy code on an Ubuntu CD. In part, that's because there are so many unused code paths. That code rots, it lurks in the background, and it causes bugs and slows down development. Every time we have "some background option" added to appease someone, I worry that we're adding code which will slow down the primary thrust of development and fragment the testing we can do. There's a perception that "alternative pathways" are free. They are not. Mark |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature