[Kss-devel] Default compression method fail (patch included)

[Balazs Ree]

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:56:53 +0100, Jeroen Vloothuis wrote:

> Balazs Ree wrote:
>>> Do you think it's a good idea to commit it in the trunk ? If you don't
>>> have time, I can commit it for you if you give me an access to the
>>> repository.
>>>     
>>>     
>> Before thinking of a fix, please provide more details to convince us
>> that we really need this change. We absolutely need to understand and
>> reproduce the problem before taking any more action about the issue.
>>   
> The change just seems to fix the number of parameters of a lambda which
> is used as a callback. Afaik we should just create a test to make sure
> it does not break again (and is supposed to have two arguments).
> Discussing the need for this behavior seems irrelevant since the code is
> already there, its just broken.

I'm still interested in why we need the fix. The selection of compression 
type is there in the code, because originally I thought it would be a 
general purpose utility. However this did not happen we (from kss) don't 
use it for anything else then compressing javascript. Note that in the 
next version of kss this piece of code even goes away. Maybe the solution 
is to backport this from the new kss.base code and let the compression 
type selection go away completely, maybe we should apply the fix 
suggested, or maybe just leave it like it is. We have more options and it 
all depends on _why_ this problem occured.

So what I'd like to see is a bugreport with

- a full traceback producing the problem
- description of steps that lead to the problem
- a test that reproduces the problem

We use this code in kss for years without any problems. If someone 
suddenly experiences problems, it is most certainly because of changed 
use conditions. I want to know about these changed conditions, before 
touching the code that actually has been stable for a while.

If the current code causes problems, we definitely want to change it so 
the problem goes away, and we want the best solution to fix it. But 
applying a fix without understanding the problem that we want to fix, 
seems the wrong way for me.

So without any further explanation, I demand more information from the 
original reporter of this bug.

-- 
Balazs Ree