Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:12:13 +0100 as excerpted: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:30:03 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: >> There's value in someone being just contrarian enough to purposefully >> look for the strangest or most illogical read of a spec and (initially) >> implement it that way, in ordered to root out and get the bugs in the >> spec fixed. That said... > > I highly doubt the person implementing the code for Paludis was doing it > in a contrarian way. As far as I can see, he simply implemented what the > spec says.
Not saying it has to be deliberate. There's some people who seem to just seem to have the gift. The way they think just naturally finds the bugs in the spec, the loophole in the law, whatever. They're terribly frustrating to people who equally naturally seem to find the most tolerant read of things, but if it was deliberate at some point years ago, it's no longer so; it just comes naturally. And what I'm saying is that as terribly frustrating as it can be, there's some value in that, because they /do/ end up finding the bugs/loopholes/ whatever, which is good as then they can be fixed. And there's some value in recognizing that good for what it is. Another analogy would be that these people are human versions of the kernel's trinity fuzz tester... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
