On 06-09-18, at 01:03, Joe Ruby MUDCRAP-CE wrote:

> 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.

If you're trying to maintain compatibility with previous versions of  
your software, or the bug is low impact, the risk outweighs the benefit.

> Joe

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna / blurgle.ca