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

[J. Paul Reed]

On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Gervase Markham wrote:

> 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 :-)

No they don't.

Which leads me to believe you're not seeing the same thing I'm seeing when
I load that URL (which is why I wish we were using Mailman instead of
Majordomo, but that's an ancillary issue).

The first URL says:

---
Bradley Baetz wrote:
> Well, my rock is called 'honors thesis' :)
>
> Seriously, though, the second of your bugs (moving processmail to a
> package) would save us about 1 second per call, and its relatively free
> of
> contraversy, so that may be the better one to start with.

Ah. I was about to suggest the first one, because it blocks a load of
other mail work, particularly templatisation :-) But I guess perf is
more important right now.
---

You did suggest "the first one" (84876), as you did this time, but then
concede "I guess perf is more important right now," leading me to believe
you think 124174 should be fixed first.

So, I reiterate: which is it?

> 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 :-)

Actually, that's not true.

If you look at bugs nominated under the [needed for Win32bz] whiteboard,
124174 is there, along with 84876 and a number of bugs related to both of
those.

So fixing *either* of them will help Win32ers. But 124174 is "more" helpful
to Win32ers.

> 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...

We have no fix because every time you get involved on 84876, it turns into a
pissing match. That's not assigning blame to you (if anything, I'm as
responsible as you are), but it *is* a statement of fact.

If you remember, I wanted to get 84876 fixed in August, *before* school
started, when I had a bunch of time. I made this very clear at the time.
That didn't happen because the time was basically spent arguing between
ourselves, then arguing in front of justdave, and then it was September.

At that time, bbaetz contributed some other code to help with 84876, and I
said I'd merge everyone's patches together and submit something. I still
plan on doing so, and I told you the timetable in which I plan on doing it.

Considering that the holidays are coming up and 84876 is a big bug
involving not only fixing the bug itself, but the associated email
templatization and this isn't affecting anyone in a superbad way (i.e.
we're not in the 2.18--or 2.17.2--push right now), I think it can wait for
a month.

But what the hell do I know?

Later,
Paul
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  J. Paul Reed                 preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed
  Wait, stop!  We can outsmart those dolphins.  Don't forget: we invented
  computers, leg warmers, bendy straws, peel-and-eat shrimp, the glory
  hole, *and* the pudding cup!  -- Homer Simpson, Tree House of Horror XI