This question comes from the perspective of a business analyst at the project site who identifies/tests issues which are fixed by a remote group.

Say we receive a patch for issue A which resolves issue A yet causes issue B (which was previously working functionality). It seems like we have two options (or suggest something else) which are either accept the patch and create a new issue B, or reject the patch since it introduced the regression issue. Assuming that both issues are of equal severity, is there reason to prefer one of the options?

closed as off topic by Thomas Owens, jmort253 Jul 3 '12 at 4:30

Questions on Project Management Stack Exchange are expected to relate to project management within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • How are issues related to the economics of your arrangement with remote group and the customer? – Mark Phillips May 24 '12 at 16:44

Typically you'll reject the patch, since the issues are of equal severity. You have a known issue already, but patch A gives you issue B, which could have other side effects (devil you know vs the devil you don't).

Hope that helps, let me know if there are questions.

  • +1 for the idiom! "Devil you know vs the devil you don't". – jmort253 May 26 '12 at 0:24

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.