unity-design team mailing list archive

[Mark Shuttleworth <mark@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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