On 22 March 2011 19:26, Nicolas Cellier <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
It is a realistic approach. Obviously there is not much resources in Pharo task forces to spend them on something which nobody maintains/cares anymore. It is better to focus energy on something that everybody needs and make sure it works well. > Nicolas > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
