>>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You need to provide more. Which of the 74 bugs are a must for >> 1.4.0. And and _why_ are they required? Most of these 74 bugs (in particular those who do not have a patch) are just thing for which we sais "sure, we should do it in 1.4 timeframe" and since 1.4.1 was the last version available for targeting, this is what got used. Angus> What I don't understand is why you're willing to ship a product Angus> with 39 known bugs for which you already have patches. It's not Angus> as if you're adhering to a tight release cycle. Also, many of those bugs (not all) got attention because we said we were going to release. Many arrived very late in the game. Angus> Your attitude doesn't seem much different to that of Ford who Angus> allowed the Ford Pinto to go to market despite the fact that Angus> they knew that its gas tank would explode in a collision. Ford Angus> ended up recalling 1.5 million Pintos for modifications, but Angus> only after they had the pants sued of off them. I do not think these bugs make us crash and burn. Some bad performance wise, but they are related to patches that are not 100% sure for me. Did you actually look at the list? For example, a wild thought that occured to me this morning: the break-paragraph-in-change tracking patch can attach a changed attribute to the end of paragraph. I like this idea, but how does this translate in terms of file format? Is that a file format change? Frankly, seeing that Lars' availability is not perfect these days, I'd prefer to release 1.4 as soon as he can and work from there. JMarc
