Blake Ross wrote:
>> Wrong, risk is always relative. Obviously, if someone does something
>> negligent, a relatively low risk activity can have serious consequences.
>
>
> lol. That doesn't make any sense.
Yes it does, try again (oh, I forgot, you don't want to understand).
>> I'm sure you would agree that sitting in a tub with 2.54 centimeters
>> of water is not really risky (under normal conditions, duh), but that
>> it *IS* possible to drow in it if you were to become unconscious and
>> fall face down in it. EVERY activity can potentially have dire
>> consequences. I am talking about *relatively* low risk activities
>> under normal conditions (no unlikely screwups).
>>
>> You are citing unlikely scenarios in an attempt to block a ueful
>> feature. Why?
>
>
> Because I'm attempting (unsuccessfully) to show you that risk and ease
> of fix have nothing to do with on another, and yet your entire crusade
> to add this keyword is based on the fact that new contributors need a
> way to find 'easy' bugs. I can add one character to most of the files
> in the tree to bring down the app.
You just refuse to accept that some bugs are easier to fix than others.
You also refuse to acknowledge that some bugs have a higher risk
associated with them than others. Nothing i can do about stubbornness
and/ignorance :(
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
