Am Dienstag, den 30.05.2006, 20:18 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann: > Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > > > If you look in the svn history of that file you will see that there was > > much worst bug about this. Maybe this was neven called anyway because > > the streams were always correctly closed by James. > > In fact, currently it gets called. I checked with a debugger and we > notice it from the change in behavior as we change the code. > > > Imho, the fact that it is (and has been) so buggy is a +1 to remove it > > and eventually investigate bugs introduced removing that outdated code > > instead of loosing much more time fixing that code itself. > > Again, this is a much too radical diagnosis for me (although in the end > it might happen that the whole stuff gets rewritten. but it is not > obvious to me at this point in time). But we know this discussion > already... ;-) > I don't understand this whole reasoning behind 'loosing time', > 'discussing too much', 'risk'. > I'd rather understand what's really happening, writing test and all this > old-fashioned stuff and resolve the problem step-by-step. > > Bernd >
Im really agree with Bernd. If its a bug we should fix it! I don't like to keep bugs open if we allready know them and start on fixin... I also don't want to have such a bug in 2.3.0 final! bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
