[asterisk-dev] Silly bug in format_sln

[Denis Smirnov]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:24:25AM -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:

>> Yesterday I found bug and post patch. Cordyon76 respond that hi fix
>> this bug but with own patch and close bug. I see that this patch
>> worse than my, and reopen bug. Bug was closed. I reopen bug with
>> quote from fseek(3). Bug was closed. I reopen bug and once again have
>> explained why it is not right. Bug was silently closed. I write mail
>> to maillist and after some time seen in asterisk-commits that my
>> patch was commited.
TL> The commit was already done before the last close, and it was notated
TL> that it was fixed.  The fix that I committed previously was not wrong;
TL> it indeed functioned perfectly.

Yes, it works perfectly, because 0 / 2 == 0 :) But I think that code must
be readable, and if four complex lines works like one simple, using
complex variant not better way for developing ;)

>> And I does not understand why I get -2 karma for commiting working
>> patch with separate bug id (for 64 bit filesize support).
TL> You were informed that it was a duplicate of another, already open bug,
TL> yet you reopened it several times.  Seeing as how opening a duplicate is
TL> a reason for negative karma, I subtracted karma after you refused to
TL> allow the bug to remain closed.  Note that I did not subtract karma
TL> initially, because I believe that people can make an honest mistake and
TL> not see that there was a duplicate; however, after being informed as
TL> such, you obstinately refused to allow the bug to remain closed, and so
TL> karma was subtracted.

Thanks, now I understood.

I thinks that right way is _separate_ related but not similars bugs,
because that simplify tracking/finding bugs and changes (Monitor for 2
days phone call rarely need, but 64bit file offsets is a part of code
cleanup). 

But your are right -- in yours bugtracker you have your own rules.

-- 
JID: ds at im.seiros.ru
ICQ: 58417635 (please, use jabber, if you can)

http://freesource.info/