Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CyberSimian" data-source="post: 1286869" data-attributes="member: 141969">In my view, the reason that it has been difficult to get information about how these various features are supposed to work is because none of the current team members actually knows how they are supposed to work (sorry if that offends any of the team). Each of us knows about the small part of MP that we use, because we use it every day, but know nothing (or very little) about other parts of MP. For example, I am one of those weird people who cannot see the value in downloading additional information from the internet, and I have no idea how it is supposed to work (and cannot help with the testing of it).You have done a tremendous amount of work in restructuring this fundamental part of MP, and from your descriptions of the changes, the modified code offers significant improvements. I for one would be saddened if this code were not incorporated into MP. But as [USER=68833]@ajs[/USER] has said, we must not remove function merely because we personally do not see the value of it.So what to do? If there is an error in the code that is obviously a bug, then we fix it. But if it is not clear that it is a bug, then we need to preserve that behaviour. If you modify that code for other reasons, you need to ensure that the suspect behaviour is included and remains unchanged. Yes, this means doing additional work to preserve the suspect behaviour, possibly for no one's benefit. But without a long-term product architect who knows how each and every part of MP is supposed to work, we need to take that extra step and preserve that suspect code. This may involve more work than you want to commit to.-- from CyberSimian in the UK</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CyberSimian, post: 1286869, member: 141969"] In my view, the reason that it has been difficult to get information about how these various features are supposed to work is because none of the current team members actually knows how they are supposed to work (sorry if that offends any of the team). Each of us knows about the small part of MP that we use, because we use it every day, but know nothing (or very little) about other parts of MP. For example, I am one of those weird people who cannot see the value in downloading additional information from the internet, and I have no idea how it is supposed to work (and cannot help with the testing of it). You have done a tremendous amount of work in restructuring this fundamental part of MP, and from your descriptions of the changes, the modified code offers significant improvements. I for one would be saddened if this code were not incorporated into MP. But as [USER=68833]@ajs[/USER] has said, we must not remove function merely because we personally do not see the value of it. So what to do? If there is an error in the code that is obviously a bug, then we fix it. But if it is not clear that it is a bug, then we need to preserve that behaviour. If you modify that code for other reasons, you need to ensure that the suspect behaviour is included and remains unchanged. Yes, this means doing additional work to preserve the suspect behaviour, possibly for no one's benefit. But without a long-term product architect who knows how each and every part of MP is supposed to work, we need to take that extra step and preserve that suspect code. This may involve more work than you want to commit to. -- from CyberSimian in the UK [/QUOTE]

Verification