Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


At 5:39am -0400 Wed, 05 Oct 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Unfortunately, there's no good unit tests for this code. Blame it on
me for taking the all too easy road out and committing the fix
without doing the boring ^H^H^H joyful work of adding a test for it
first.

There's no blame,[1] only hopeful questions. As I already alluded -- flat out said -- *I* don't know how to get at this particular code, and I'm worried that having now "corrected" the logic, we're changing semantics for some (incorrect) code that relies on the broken behavior.

Ah well, I suppose it'll work itself out in the end.

Cheers,

Kevin

[1] It occurs to me that this is a great point for OS software: you *can't* blame anyone. Unlike in proprietary software, where (supposedly) the boss always wants to be able to blame someone ... the flip side is that we're "safe" as developers, no? ;-)

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.