Re: patch rereview requested for PRs 6860, 10467 and 11741

[neroden at twcny dot rr dot com (Nathanael Nerode)]

Dave Anglin:
    Quality is achieved partly through testing.  If we can't do testing
    because the product is broken, I can't see how we can ensure a high
    quality product.

Richard Kenner:
>Sure, but I don't see your point here.  Nobody (certainly not me) is 
>arguing in favor of buggy code or of not fixing bugs.

In the actual patch originally at issue, it fixed known bugs.  The 
reviewers declared that it was the wrong thing to do, but did not, 
apparently, propose an alternative route to fix the bugs.

In the other patches complained about, they apparently fixed build 
failures on entire architectures.  The reviewers declared that this was 
not the right way to do it, and the right way to do it involved huge 
infrastructure changes which would take many months.  As a result, these 
architectures have not built for many months.

I believe this is Dave Anglin's point:  If there is a 'quick fix' which 
works, and a theoretical 'good fix' which nobody is able or willing to
implement in a reasonable amount of time, the quick fix should be put in
for now, because waiting many months for the 'good fix' isn't
going to help anyone.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  :-)

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden at gcc.gnu.org>
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html