On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:37 PM, James Mansion <james@mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote:
glyph@divmod.com wrote: Patches which rectify this situation for any reactor, either from the perspective of docs or code, would of course be appreciated. There's no point giving a commitment to doing more than discussing implementation approaches. With the best will in the world its unlikely to get to the top of my pile and there's no point living a fantasy. [...] And, if you're going to file a ticket, be prepared to actually follow up with an implementation. Hmm - that's a crap attitude unless you want to deter any concensus formation during design. I know its quite common in open source. :-(
Twisted developers' time is as limited as yours is. They're not living in a fantasy either. Resolving a bug includes gathering requirements and building consensus, but building consensus goes much faster if there's an implementation handy to discuss. Even a quick hack is useful as a discussion point. A very common scenario is that a quick hack is eventually refined into a unit tested, UQDS-vetted implementation. However, a hand-waving discussion never is. I certainly understand your frustrations (I've been there myself, many times over, with pretty much every piece of software I've ever developed with). I agree heartily with the point that there is a bug if the software doesn't behave according to documentation, and there is even an argument to be made that the documentation should note known limitations--particularly when, as in this case, they are not secret black knowledge but common knowledge, and doubly when this non-secret non-black knowledge is a stumbling block for so many newbies. Still, things get fixed when someone fixes them. It falls on the person who needs them fixed to do so, no matter whether you're talking about software or rain gutters.