On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Syscrusher wrote:
On Thursday 21 April 2005 09:28, Bèr Kessels wrote:
But to allow "interim" solutions? naah. I think it will bring down our overall quality a lot. And it will make our porject a lot harder to maintain, since our CVS will be in a constant status of no--really-working. Much more than now.
I've been reading both sides of this thread with interest, and after thinking about it, I'm mostly with Bèr on this issue. He expresses concerns that crossed my mind from the very first post on this thread.
Yeah. Also, the examples given for what would constitute such interim solutions were not convincing to say the least. I still would like to see usefull patches hit core faster than they do now, though. I've no idea how this coul dbe achieved, though. Cheers, Gerhard