On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:22:21 -0700 "Matt Diephouse via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed Mar 21 03:44:10 2007, codermattie wrote: > > Hello, > > [snip] > I'd like to get this ticket (#41908) resolved. The patch was applied, > so everything is good there, but your reply here has left me > wondering. If there is more to be done, could you open another ticket? > > It's better to split off new requests/bugs into new tickets rather > than keep them in the patch ticket because it cuts down the amount of > reading that needs to be done when sorting through tickets. The patch > itself doesn't seem that relevant that it couldn't be a separate > ticket. I wanted to do things incrementally. With RT #42898 the patch sequence dealing with extension guessing is code complete. With the full interface cut in code I will do up the tests and docs as #429898 gets kicked around. The relationship between #41908 and the patch may not be entirely clear because I wanted to get feedback on my plan before I finished all the changes. That is why there is so much speculation in #41908. I also took care to make sure the existing tree was not disrupted, and that the new behavior could be adopted incrementally. The latter in particular was why what could have been one patch was split into #41908, and #42898. I wanted the preservation of existing behavior tested by other people before I took the next step. I will keep your comments in mind with my future submissions to RT. Your reply indicates that at the very least I could improve my clarity when communicating with the project. With these comments in mind if you have a better approach I for the future please let me know about it. Cheers, Mike Mattie - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Thanks. > > -- > Matt Diephouse > Cheers, Mike Mattie - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
