Ian Malone wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:36:21AM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Possibly because he did not file one.
BTW, why do you presume to place such a responsibility on him?
You know a bug, you want it fixed, you file a bug report. Even with
the best
intentions, it's hard for developers to keep track of things things from
outside of the system -- that's why there *is* a system.
I don't see where he ever said he wanted ext3 fixed, so I don't
see where he has any obligation to file a defect report.
I have been a developer myself since 1980, so I think I know
why defect tracking systems exist.
Correct, the OP did not express a desire to have it fixed.
Paradoxically the OP expressed an interest in having a stable
file system. If you really care about having something work
well it's in your interest to particpate in the development
process, even if that only means giving a little feedback.
I don't see that as being paradoxical. He seems not to care
whether ext3 has a defect, except in making a decision not
to use it. Perhaps he has more interest in reiserfs. If so,
then presumably he will make defect reports.
The alternative when you meet a bug is to label the software
as having failed and move onto something else, but that
approach is eventually going to be exhausted.
It is not the only other choice. I outlined another above:
report defects on software you are interested in. This is
what most people do.
Do you make defect reports against Windows? Or do you simply
not use it any more than you must?
But the topic begins to drift, I fear.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
