Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So we agree that the maintainer is at fault: he wanted to change things and not have to thoroughly test his changes by doing the boring work of adding test coverage to the modified area.


There is no arguing about that, the maintainer made a mistake. (Among other people, and it was insignificant anyway.)

So now that we agree on this, what now? How exactly does

  > does not give a warm fuzzy feeling about the author of the at-fault patch leading a fork.
follow? E.g. do you think that none of the Wayland developers ever made any mistakes?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: