you're sorry that i don't deliver regression bugs?
ur mum's face is an idiot.
the cat is back in the bag as you are as confident in your opinion as you are in divulging your identity.
you are NOTHING
you are presumptuous and ultimately wrong in your assertions, as i'm sure you also are quite often in all of the deliverables you produce or contribute to.
passing regression tests is only a confirmation of fit as far as the regression test modelers and supporters and maintainers make it to be.
it's "cheapier" and easier to hire a competent development team that doesn't require a regression testing team, as they never deliver a faulty deliverable.
now you'll argue that isn't possible. then i'll call you an incompetent idiot.
you'll probably claim i'm being childish, then i'll claim ur mum's face is childish.... the simple truth is YOU ARE WRONG.
choosing to continue to argue MAKES YOU AN IDIOT.
you are NOTHING
you're an ignorant hypocrite.
no sales tax + free shipping = i have more money left to offset my own carbon footprint in the ways i choose to.
i'm claiming that numerous, small, terse, highly readable triggers are LESS MAINTAINABLE, in regards of time required to change feature requirements, than other options.
claiming that statement is wrong is IGNORANT. relying on a platform layer to offset that amount of time INVALIDATES THE ADVANTAGES AND NECESSITY OF HAVING CONDITIONAL TRIGGERS.
you are NOTHING.
how many CAN i have?
Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling