Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
> On 06-09-17, at 21:20, Joe Ruby MUDCRAP-CE wrote:
> 
>> Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
>>> I would stress that strict back-compatibility,
>>> even with bugs, is generally the way to go (except for bugs that open
>>> security holes)
>>
>> Big -1 there. BC with bugs? Ixnay.
> 
> That would seriously depend on the bug. Some bugs, you know EXACTLY
> how they're going to react, and if it's relatively minor, why bother
> running the risk of introducing a different, worse bug in the process
> of fixing that minor bug? I mean shit, that's just silly. You need to
> realize that not all bugs need to be fixed, just as not all injuries
> need a doctor.

Seriously? Being paralyzed by the fear of introducing new bugs is 
justification for not fixing existing bugs? Now that's silly.

Joe

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.