[Twisted-Python] win32 reactors

[Cory Dodt]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:37 PM, James Mansion
<james at mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote:
> > glyph at 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.