Email patches?! Where the *&$#& is Paul?!!! was Re: Custom fields

[Gervase Markham]

J. Paul Reed wrote:

> >If anyone disagrees, let's hear it, but I for one would prefer that you
> >made 84876 your number 1 priority, or handed it off to another developer.
>
> Which do you want?
>
> http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=bugzilla.org?list=developers&func=archive-get-part&extra=200210/97

Er... both of these requests ask for 84876 :-) In the one you reference, 
bbaetz says "the second one" (i.e. processmail as package, 124174), and 
I say  "actually the first one, because it blocks templatisation", which 
is basically what I just said in this thread also.

> I'm inclined to agree with bbaetz
> (http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr/domain=bugzilla.org?list=developers&func=archive-get-part&extra=200210/95)
> on this one, mainly because 127174 is mostly done, is a (big) perf 
> one, has
> no controversy, and at least gives the illusion that we care about and are
> working on Win32 ;-)

In other words, it gives our customers a false sense of when they are 
going to get what they want. I thought that sort of thing was reserved 
for commercial projects :-)

But, at the risk of engendering controversy, if you won't have time for 
the other bug, I'm happy to produce a patch and drive it through. I 
conceded after our technical disagreement on that bug, partly on the 
basis that some fix was better than no fix (as several people said.) But 
having done that, we still have no fix...

Gerv