On 1/7/13 1:02 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
I've seen some inconsistent usage, so I just wanted to get a group opinion.
If a fix for bug X introduces regression bug Y, should Y "block" X
(because X is not properly fixed until regression Y is fixed) or should
Y "depend on" X (because regression Y do
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Monday 2013-01-07 13:02 -0800, Chris Peterson wrote:
>> I've seen some inconsistent usage, so I just wanted to get a group opinion.
>>
>> If a fix for bug X introduces regression bug Y, should Y "block" X
>> (because X is not properly fixe
On Monday 2013-01-07 13:02 -0800, Chris Peterson wrote:
> I've seen some inconsistent usage, so I just wanted to get a group opinion.
>
> If a fix for bug X introduces regression bug Y, should Y "block" X
> (because X is not properly fixed until regression Y is fixed)
This one.
At least, until w
Y blocks X.
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
> I've seen some inconsistent usage, so I just wanted to get a group opinion.
>
> If a fix for bug X introduces regression bug Y, should Y "block" X
> (because X is not properly fixed until regression Y is fixed) or should Y
> "dep
I've seen some inconsistent usage, so I just wanted to get a group opinion.
If a fix for bug X introduces regression bug Y, should Y "block" X
(because X is not properly fixed until regression Y is fixed) or should
Y "depend on" X (because regression Y does not exist without fix X)?
thanks,
c
5 matches
Mail list logo