Nathan L. Adams wrote: > Also, in the case were the 'fix' doesn't actually fix the bug, you waste > alot more development time by letting it slip through and having to > 'fix' it again later. So you can justify the time cost now, with time > saved later.
Just think of it as branch prediction. If the case you describe here truly were that common, we'd all be doomed anyway, as that would mean the common case is developers closing bugs without fixing them and users filing bugs but not being interested if they're fixed. > But then again, developer time *is* a very scarce resource. That's why I > fielded the idea that the verification process only be required on > things like Portage. Yes, in a volunteer project such scrutinous QA will certainly only work in a small domain, and is only really feasible for the most critical components. On the other hand, IMHO, these components are already the most thoroughly tested - I'd trust portage with brain surgery any day! As a final note, I have enjoyed this conversation but I'm actually not really qualified to talk about these matters as I'm not a gentoo dev, so I'll refrain from more philosophizing - otherwise somebody might take me up on that brain-surgery thing :) Marco -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
