>Then any replacement project should start with implementing a better test suite in order to know what you're doing
"Then any replacement project should not include bugs in their code."
Like I said before, broad statements like these are borderline pointless.
Of course we all know the should, the real problem is how -- how can you realistically make a "better test suite" when your goal is to create a bug-for-bug compatible replacement project?
And given the size of the original project, how should a better test suite be created?
>That is a problem with whatever option library they chose to use.
Instead of being vague, why not show a precise example of what you are talking about?
"Then any replacement project should not include bugs in their code."
Like I said before, broad statements like these are borderline pointless.
Of course we all know the should, the real problem is how -- how can you realistically make a "better test suite" when your goal is to create a bug-for-bug compatible replacement project?
And given the size of the original project, how should a better test suite be created?
>That is a problem with whatever option library they chose to use.
Instead of being vague, why not show a precise example of what you are talking about?