Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 10/3/2014 1:27 PM, Florian Reisinger <> wrote:
Bugs are bugs. Bugs are not meant to be introduced.

I agree... your point?

For developers and end users it one not matter, if the bug is in new
code or not.

True enough.

Even if it seems to be in new code, how do you know?

Maybe one clue is that it is a brand new feature that the developer created?

A bug corrected here can affect something "on the other side" of the
codebase, which was fixed around to correct the wrong behavior.


If a developer introduces a new inline editing *feature*, and it is
discovered after the fact that something about this new feature is
broken, it is on the developer who built it to fix it... PERIOD...
regardless of if the broken code was introduced by them or is the result
of some related code suffering from bit-rot somewhere else. It is the
nature of software development (I happen to know enough about it to not
be easily bamboozled by gobbledyspeak).

Anything else would result in a finger-pointing madhouse.

By all of this, why should dev A introduced a regression yesterday be
more responsible then dev B which broke something 10 years ago?

It is a simple matter of logic.

If dev B is still around, then dev A should ping dev B to fix their code.

If dev B is long gone, then dev A bears the burden of either finding and
fixing dev B's code, or reverting their new code with the bug
unless/until someone else comes along and fixes the bug.

Both are basically the same, so why treat them different.

You only treat them different if they are (ie, if one is no longer around).

Regressions are always bad, but neither dev A nor dev B wanted to
break this...

<sigh> and again, no one said they did...

If you want the fix NOW (or backport, for which it is too late for
4.2 I guess) it might be wise to get in touch with someone paid (better
words then "you should invest into the fix" or hope someone will do that
for free :) [Backporting is boring and risky]

Did that help?

Yep. You have made it plain that you don't think software developers are
or should be held accountable in any way, shape or form for their code
and/or for the parts of the code they choose to work on.

Which means you are someone I would *never* choose to pay to fix a bug,
because you would never sign the agreement that I would put in front of
you requiring you to actually warrant the code you write, and fix any
bugs (at no cost to me), regardless of when they are discovered (within
reason - say one full release cycle).

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.