> > I'd be concerned about the "pure bugfix" nature of the current SRE > > code base. > > well, unlike you, I wrote the code. I am aware of that. My apologies if I suggested otherwise. > it may sound weird, but I'd rather support people who rely on regular > expressions working as documented... That is not weird at all. > > For the bugfix release, I'd feel much better if a clear set of pure > > bug fixes were identified, along with a list of bugs they fix. So "no > > new feature" would rule out "no new constant named MAGIC" (*). > > what makes you so sure that MAGIC wasn't introduced to deal with > a bug report? (hint: it was) I am not sure. What was the bug report that caused its introduction? > > If a "pure bugfix" happens to break something as well, we can atleast > > find out what it fixed in return, and then probably find that the fix > > justified the breakage. > > more work, and far fewer bugs fixed. let's hope you have lots of > volunteers lined up... Nobody has asked *you* to do that work. If you think your time is better spent in fixing existing bugs instead of back-porting the fixes to 2.0 - there is nothing wrong with that at all. It all depends on what the volunteers are willing to do. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4