Hernan Tylim <htylim at yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> 	As a person who has sent a fix for a still current bug twice, and didn't
> receive a comment in either oportunity (at least stating that my fix was
> wrong or sucked) I have something to say.
Let me be blunt, but don't take it personally -
Did you review/test a fix by someone else? 
If not, why do you think it reasonable to expect that your fixes in turn
will be reviewed in a timely fashion? If most people don't help, the
rate of work getting done is slow.

Though in the case of your specific fix, its been approved already.

> 	I think that BFAV should priorize the oldest items by default. 
Those of us that use it prefer to look at fixes with more current
timestamps, therefore the tool works that way too. This is a feature,
not a bug.

If you think that the harvesting process should look at old fixes first,
you should know that when you review/test old fixes, this will
automatically update their time stamp and bring them to others'
attention.

> And also,
> though it might have changed by now, when I used the BFAV to submit these
> fixes I saw that BFAV only downloaded the latest 500 entries in the Archive,
> so you already have a timeout filter there, and I think that's a bad thing.
The BFAV user can request however many updates back he wants. The
default is just 500 because otherwise it takes it too long to come up
the first time.

Daniel