Re: Signature for QA?
On Thu, Apr 01, 1999 at 01:41:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > The only reason we're *forced* to fix them is our own various obsessions
> > with buglessness.
>
> If we're into assuring quality, we must want to be as bugless as possible.
> Isn't that obvious? :)
Can we ever be rid of all bugs? Some bugs may never be closed.
An example: Santiago filed a bug against my package atp, which is an
ASCII to postscript converter. (The documentation does not say that atp
means ASCII To Postscript, although it is quite obvious). Santiago complains
that the package actually converts iso-8859-1 to postscript, rather than
ASCII to postscript (I don't quite understand the distinction.), and so
that name is inaccurate.
I forwarded the bug upstream; the author told me that atp is also a cutesy
name as he is a tennis fan. Given this, I feel that the bug is not a bug
and should be closed.
I don't think it's our place to comment on the names
of programs anyway! emacs is no longer just a set of Editor MACroS, even
though that's what the name meant originally.
Since Santiago and I disagree, the bug (#14275) remains open. There is,
imho, nothing to fix. I would appreciate comments on this issue.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD.
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.
Reply to: