Dave Newton wrote:
Dakota Jack wrote:
I flat don't believe this. Who, what, where, when, etc?
This isn't me (although I did fix an essentially identical bug in an
internal webapp at Morgan Stanley (who), an Action instance variable
(what), in Morristown (where), spring 2004 (when), because they paid me
(why), by putting the data into a synchronized map (how) although I
believe eventually they changed the structure of the app to eliminate
the need for that (it was a quick fix for an emergency problem: "this
works almost all the time, but under load we occasionally get corrupted
data"-a-thon).
http://www.thedailywtf.com/
Today's is "the cost of static."
I just visited the above link and read the article and I don't see how
this can be presented as evidence against a more open collaborative
model. Basically it's the story of a bug. Somebody made a mistake.
People will make mistakes regardless. Also, the bug occurred, as far as
I can see, in a closed source commercial codebase, so it's not clear to
me how this is relevant at all.
I have said repeatedly at this point that I assume that code committed
by newbie committers would be reviewed. In principle, a bug like the one
described in that article would be caught at that point. But another
point about this is that having more people in the code could decrease
the mean life expectancy of such bugs because of the phenomenon of more
eyeballs.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
Anybody who thinks anyone should have commit access... feel free to walk
around tdwtf, marvel, and pat yourself on the back for being better than
some of the stories there (I hope :)
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
