On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:47:06PM +0200, Willie Sippel wrote: ... > > Isn't it just better to start with a patch that is "right", but will > > still show regressions, then fix those regressions, as opposed to > > starting with a patch that is wrong, and then hacking on it forever > > trying to solve the unsolvable problems that causes? > > > You are right, of course. I'm all for doing stuff right, and I'm not a friend > of quick-and-dirty hacks myself. I simply can't understand why most serious > regressions introduced in the last two years are seemingly not worked on at > all - they simply seem to get ignored. I'm sorry if my mail sounded like a
Simple. No one is paying to get it fixed ;) (And it requires a lot of effort for Joe Random Coder.) Thats just OpenSource for you. Ciao, Marcus
