gets with C++ and GCC before 4.7

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com> wrote:
> I do generally agree with the principle of not rendering things broken.
> But sometimes it is better for things to be broken for a little while than
> to have a band-aid fix go in and risk the proper fix being dropped on the
> floor because the immediate pain point has been eased.  Moreover, I really
> consider anything involving C++ far less critical that an issue like
> building libc itself being broken.

We are getting a little off-topic, but what the hey, it's Friday.

$0.02.

In the realm continuous integration and testing there is zero time to
leave things broken.

Leaving it broken simply causes every layer above your software stack to
apply the exact band-aid you didn't want to apply, and often they band-aid
is *way* worse than had originally devised.

The notion of leaving things broken to force others to fix issues is
a reflection of a broken process that needs fixing.

It's best if the experts fix the integration issues.

Cheers,
Carlos.