On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 02:39:31AM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote: > Lars is right. The issue is a cost/benefit analysis. If the risk of > breaking something does not outweigh the risk of failing to fix something, > then there is no point to assuming any additional risk. That's a judgement that the maintainer must make, because he knows his package better than anyone else (or he should). > A software engineer cares whether it works; a computer scientist cares > only whether it should work in theory. It was a joke. If you can't grok that, ignore it. Oh yeah, and I did I mention... I READ THE LISTS. THERE IS NO NEED TO CC ME PERSONALLY WITH REPLIES TO MESSAGES I POST TO THE LISTS UNLESS I ASK FOR THEM. I READ QUITE ENOUGH OF YOUR HOT AIR ALREADY WITHOUT GETTING YOUR SELF-IMPORTANT MISSIVES IN MY PRIVATE MAILBOX. THANK YOU. -- G. Branden Robinson | Software engineering: that part of Debian GNU/Linux | computer science which is too difficult branden@ecn.purdue.edu | for the computer scientist. roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpnB2BSs5Paf.pgp
Description: PGP signature