3 ms·

> That doesn't mean that everything is perfect and we shouldn't fix things that are broken, Okay, so this is exactly what GP said. There is a difference betwee

> That doesn't mean that everything is perfect and we shouldn't fix things that are broken, Okay, so this is exactly what GP said. There is a difference between "not adding new features" and "not fixing bugs".

gspencley 4y ago
Not to get into a semantic argument about specific words and their meanings, but my broader point is that there are certain categories of bugs where I wouldn't care if they ever got fixed or not. Maybe this is nit-picking and maybe it's my cynical brain coming out of 25 years of software development where people can't even seem to agree on what constitutes a "bug" vs a "change request" half the time, or how we prioritize the severity of bugs etc. but my point is that sometimes "it's not broken" means "it's good enough." Would I be upset if the developer "fixed" these categories of bugs? Of course not. But would I avoid using the software at all if they never did? ... "I guess that really depends on what it [the software in question] is."