On 03/11/15 13:14, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk> writes:
>
>> Interestingly I think the opposite. On a change parameters should be
>> left alone unless they're the thing I'm changing. It's a 'change' to
>> an instantiation, *not* an instantiation if you get my drift.
> Yes, that is indeed implied in the 'change' verb. However, the tc verb
> is 'replace'. If we go with the "leave things alone" paradigm, there
> will need to be some way to explicitly specify defaults...
>
> -Toke
Toke,

At the risk of bringing up a recent unfortunate bit of change
management, there was a lot of discussion/confusion over calculated
targets/intervals due to a change that ended up using uninitialised
variables in those calculations.  Certainly I remember 95mS targets
being a symptom of that amongst other things, and I also remember there
being a 'default' statement of 'that's a tc issue' when it was nothing
of the sort.

I'd like more evidence of there being an issue (steps to repro) and how
it manifests before stating 'bug in tc change/replace' whatever.  Call
me pedantic

Kevin (the pedantic)