On Dec 19, 9:03pm, David Holland wrote: } On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: } > I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. } > } > You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to } > impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." } > } > If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no } > matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the } > experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it? } } I don't really follow. It's not impossible. It's just not trivial. } } Keeping the old one has been the answer for the past twenty-odd } years. But it can't be fixed and sooner or later someone's going to } find a critical problem with it.
You can make this argument about pretty much everything. Which is, to say, a totally meaningless argument. } The reason it came up this week is that someone found and posted a } couple noncritical problems in one of the other forks of it. And, how many years has it been since the last significant bug? }-- End of excerpt from David Holland