I don't think anything which increases testing and development is necessarily good. It might do so and hurt the primary goals of the project.
I also think projects with too many features and too many bugs are not very useful. Wether that happens at 10 minor bugs per feature or at 1000, I don't know, but it does happen. On 27 March 2013 23:08, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > Without reference to the actual patch, adding one major feature and > adding 10 minor bugs is still useful, because it increases testing and > therefore development. > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 07:01:21PM -0300, Gonzalo Odiard wrote: >> It's true, but this comments are in the context of new features, >> and specifically big features like the proposed Journal changes. >> In this context, if we add 1 feature and 10 bugs, is not a good deal. >> >> Gonzalo >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:53 PM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: >> >> I disagree. A 90% working patch should be reviewed or even accepted, >> if it improves the situation more than it degrades the situation. >> >> Don't let the good be the enemy of the perfect. >> >> In particular, if the patch fixes a high priority ticket but opens >> three low priority tickets, the project has still benefited. >> >> Each patch mail can be considered a "release" of sorts. Releasing >> early and often increases collaboration. >> >> -- >> James Cameron >> http://quozl.linux.org.au/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Sugar-devel mailing list >> Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel >> >> > > -- > James Cameron > http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- Daniel Narvaez _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
