Re: [xslt] Bug 530891
- From: Ron Burk <ronburk hightechinfo com>
- To: The Gnome XSLT library mailing-list <xslt gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [xslt] Bug 530891
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:20:16 -0700
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
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)
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,
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.
] [Thread Prev