2011/3/22 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]>: > On 22 March 2011 13:28, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 22, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Now condenses change should work too :) >>> >> >> I am slowly adopting a radical "if we don't test it, it's will brake" point >> of view. >> I now even say: If we don't test it, it *should* be broken! Because it is >> dead >> code and should be removed. >> > > I like a systematic approach. :) >
Agree, If not maintained it won't work. If not tested it's not maintained. So your sentence must be true in most cases (except case of luck) And if not maintained, the choices are - revive - or remove and that is the Pharo way, Squeak being more conservative. Nicolas >> Marcus >> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko AKA sig. > >
