From Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no  Mon Feb 23 08:46:03 2009
From: Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk at idi.ntnu.no (Wacek Kusnierczyk)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:46:03 +0100
Subject: [Rd] 'unique' error message
	is	printed	despite	silent=TRUE	(PR#13547)
In-Reply-To: <49A1EB38.4030805@stats.uwo.ca>
References: <20090222191519.17912282C76C@mail.pubhealth.ku.dk>	<49A1B292.1070908@biostat.ku.dk>	<49A1BEB5.6050701@idi.ntnu.no>
	<49A1C13F.5090109@stats.uwo.ca> <49A1C5B9.9050905@idi.ntnu.no>
	<49A1D8A1.2070203@stats.uwo.ca> <49A1DE22.50900@idi.ntnu.no>
	<49A1EB38.4030805@stats.uwo.ca>
Message-ID: <49A2543B.4030409@idi.ntnu.no>

Duncan Murdoch wrote:

<snip>

> On 22/02/2009 6:22 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote:
>> well, ok, but it sounds odd to me that in a large multideveloper project
>> where not only people are allowed to use their idiosyncratic habits (and
>> leave bug-inducing footprints behind), but even the idea of having a
>> consistent way of printing debug messages seems not to have been
>> discussed (how much am i off here?).
>
> I think you are just trolling now.  How could we stop people from
> using whatever method they wanted when debugging?  And we don't
> "allow" people to leave bugs behind, but sometimes (being fallible)
> they do anyways.

i wasn't trolling, it was a genuine question.  you're probably too
sensitive.  i don't see anything wrong in at least trying to achieve
consensus on policies for how code is altered by various developers.


<snip>
>
>>
>> yes, though irrespectively of the consequences, it still was a bug,
>> no? (have you thanked stavros for reporting it?)
>
> I hope he realizes that we do appreciate the report.  That's why it
> got such quick attention.  (I don't expect him to thank me for fixing
> it, either.)

and why not?  is it usual (an polite) to make (and express) the
assumption that no one will thank you for removing a bug?

vQ



[Rd] 'unique' error message is printed despite silent=TRUE (PR#13547)
Wacek Kusnierczyk