There are two kinds of programmers. If you believe that, let me also tell you what they are. There are those who program The Right Way, with fully modular, well-commented objects that can be picked up and edited, bug fixed, or expanded by anyone reasonably fluent in the skillset needed to create that sort of code. Then there are those that try their daggum-est to turn into cyborgs, where you have to have the human to understand what's going on with the code. "We can't fire John Doe! Without him the whole place would collapse!"

Strangely, then, the best programmers are those who are confident enough in their abilities that they happily code themselves out of any job security -- and paradoxically, if their manager is worth a rip, thereby secure the same (that being job security, if the attempt at flair was too much, which I fear it was).

This guy, the guy responding and refusing to list the bugs he feels must be fixed before the product is released, is pretty clearly of the second kind.

>As Kim has mentioned, it is unclear what bugs you are referring to.
>There are only a couple of bugs listed in FOR-RELEASE. The bugs in
>emacs-pretest-bug, which are usually minor problems, get fixed at
>about the same rate as they are being reported, i.e. after a few days.
>Maybe the reason you have the idea that bugs aren't being fixed
>because developers sometimes don't send a follow-up email to the list
>when they check their fix into CVS.

I hope soon to have time to recheck the saved mail.
But there are several messages I have posted more than once on
this list, with no response, which will go into FOR-RELEASE
when I get future reminders.