Re: [xslt] Bug 530891

[Ron Burk <ronburk hightechinfo com>]

> I'm not quite clear on the significance of that beginning, but my
> initial interpretation is to take it quite badly.

I apologize for that. One should never attempt humor
with people you don't know.

> with bug 541965 (atan2 arguments),

Never heard of that bug. Just happened to see one go
by that I thought I could debug. Sorry.

> Assuming we are now talking exclusively about bug 530891, as a bug
> chaser my first duty is to confirm that the bug is valid, i.e. is the
> claim of "wrong" behaviour truly "wrong".  That means I first must
> check the spec to see what is "right", so I need to look at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#function-element-available.

Yeah, I did that too. I would sure want a second opinion
before infecting the code base with mine, though, so I
don't see that I could/should have saved you (or someone)
that effort.

> For a small change, just a reference to the line and the suggested
> change is sufficient.  For something more complex, use "diff -c" to
> generate a file which can be attached to either the bug report, or to
> the mailing list post.

Thanks -- I will try to do that next time.

> It's also useful to check whether the function is
> actually checked by any of the regression tests (in this case it is,
> by tests/extensions/list.xsl).

Couldn't follow your logic there. Seems like you
already know that if it is checked by any regression
tests, the tests were not sufficient to identify the
bug. I would have assumed the logical thing to do is
add a regression test, but I didn't see any defined
process for doing that, or I would have been happy
to do so (well, I guess the original bug submission
pretty much supplies the regression test, but I suppose
there is other clerical work to plug it into the existing
regression testing framework, etc.).

> So, now the bug is closed, and I have spent somewhere between a
> half-hour to an hour of time that I could have spent on any of several
> other projects that I am actively involved with.

Thanks for the detailed post, which has removed at
least a couple of points of ignorance that would
impede someone like me from contributing.