As a rule, in industry practice, developers don't get to redefine expected functionality to avoid something being a bug.
Communications gaps on what expected functionality was are to some extent unavoidable. Some bugs slip into that crack. But, if both the test and users would have complained, it is a bug, regardless of what reasonable developer expectations were. Yes, it sucks. But, this is what having real users (versus idealized ones) brings... -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone On Mar 10, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Tyler Romeo <tylerro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Brandon Harris <bhar...@wikimedia.org>wrote: > >> This is a fairly limited view. The functionality was *broken*. It failed >> to work in the way it was expected to work. That’s what “broken” means. > > > I'm not going to bother repeating myself. I recommend re-reading this > thread for an explanation of how it is disputed as to whether this patch > broke anything. > > *-- * > *Tyler Romeo* > Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 > Major in Computer Science > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
