As a rule, in industry practice, developers don't get to redefine expected functionality to avoid something being a bug.
Communications gaps on what expected functionality was are to some extent unavoidable. Some bugs slip into that crack. But, if both the test and users would have complained, it is a bug, regardless of what reasonable developer expectations were.
Yes, it sucks. But, this is what having real users (versus idealized ones) brings...
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
On Mar 10, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Tyler Romeo tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.orgwrote:
This is a fairly limited view. The functionality was *broken*. It failed to work in the way it was expected to work. That’s what “broken” means.
I'm not going to bother repeating myself. I recommend re-reading this thread for an explanation of how it is disputed as to whether this patch broke anything.
*-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l