Re: Action for 4.2 [was Re: with image and reversed x-axis]

[Ethan M. <merritt@u.washington.edu>]

On Thursday 02 November 2006 02:43 pm, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> Another work around could be to just use the keyword "flipx", which
> already exists.

Yeah, except then the burden is on the user to figure out when
it is needed and when it isn't.  If you don't already know what
the plot is supposed to look like, how do you know whether or
not to flip it?

> As for a general fix, somehow I don't see this as too difficult if we
> can decide on where the inversion should be handled.  I mean, the
> image is at least in the right location, 

  for x11, not for the others

> I would think at worst a fix is a three or four line conditional test
> inside "plot_with_image..." in connection with changes in each of the
> drivers that looks incorrect.

Not sure I follow you.  We know that one driver does it correctly
when given the info already being passed down by the core.
So why would there be any changes needed in the core code?
The brokeness must lie in the individual drivers, or at least
that's what it seems to me.

> If it is a decision between adding a comment "known bug" and making
> an alteration to make that bug less egregious vs. simply fixing the
> bug even though it may mean twice the amount of work, I'd go with the
> latter.

I'm not so much concerned about the amount of [someone else's]
work, but the chance of breaking other things while fixing this one.
I am extremely wary of fixes that touch more than a line or two
at the stage of the game.  I'd rather go with a warning about a
known bug than ship significantly revised code that has had minimal
testing. 

-- 
Ethan A Merritt
Biomolecular Structure Center
University of Washington, Seattle WA