[Sugar-devel] 90% working patches (was Re: 0.100 release schedule)

[Daniel Narvaez]

I don't think anything which increases testing and development is
necessarily good. It might do so and hurt the primary goals of the
project.

I also think projects with too many features and too many bugs are not
very useful. Wether that happens at 10 minor bugs per feature or at
1000, I don't know, but it does happen.

On 27 March 2013 23:08, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> Without reference to the actual patch, adding one major feature and
> adding 10 minor bugs is still useful, because it increases testing and
> therefore development.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 07:01:21PM -0300, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>> It's true, but this comments are in the context of new features,
>> and specifically big features like the proposed Journal changes.
>> In this context, if we add 1 feature and 10 bugs, is not a good deal.
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:53 PM, James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
>>
>>     I disagree.  A 90% working patch should be reviewed or even accepted,
>>     if it improves the situation more than it degrades the situation.
>>
>>     Don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect.
>>
>>     In particular, if the patch fixes a high priority ticket but opens
>>     three low priority tickets, the project has still benefited.
>>
>>     Each patch mail can be considered a "release" of sorts.  Releasing
>>     early and often increases collaboration.
>>
>>     --
>>     James Cameron
>>     http://quozl.linux.org.au/
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>>     Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>>     http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>>
>>
>
> --
> James Cameron
> http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel



-- 
Daniel Narvaez