WAR ON BUGS [WAS Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev, would do this?)]
bobwarren at howsoft.com
Fri Jun 8 13:31:49 CDT 2007
Stephen Barncard wrote:
At 4:12 PM -0300 6/7/07, Bob Warren wrote:
> 1. RR should provide feature releases on a regular basis. We pay for them.
And we'll be getting them. It's in the roadmap, and Kevin is sticking to
> >2. We do not pay for bugfixes. The manufacturer is just putting
> >right what he has done wrong.
We didn't pay for bug fixes. Runrev extended their free upgrade policy
to customers for over a year while the WOB was going on.
> >The other day, I put forward a model under the thread "A glimpse of
> >the future" which was totally ignored. I must therefore presume that
> >in the opinion of all
I don't think we're ignoring you, we're just exhausted from the
negative. I feel Rev has emerged from a dark buggy period into the
light. We've had a few 'Rev outa do this' emails lately where the poster
seemed to go on and on and complain that Rev isn't doing enough to
please him, and he takes the stand of 'demanding customer'. Arguments
about 'bug free is impossible' vs 'it must be bug free, screw the new
features' ensues. These threads go on for weeks, then die down, then
another person (who didn't read the ones before) takes over. (I won't
name names...) I will mention Bill Marriot was once a big complainer
(with good reason)... but the difference is that he joined the Rev team,
started a 'War On Bugs!' and made a difference. I'm glad Rev exists, and
if a few bumps along the road are there, I won't complain as long as I
know there's work being done on my wishes. They are not Microsoft and
cannot deliver the manpower in the same way. Actually they have enlisted
many of us in their efforts to improve the product, and I think that's
far better than Microsoft. How can you help? When you see a bug, take
the time to describe it enough to repeat it, or make a movie, or demo
stack and send all of it to Quality Control. It will get fixed. I've
seen it happen in days.
Thanks for that, Stephen. First of all, I think that Rev have been doing
rather well lately, that's why I feel inspired enough to put forward
some suggestions for further improvement. Do you think I should stop?
How does one point out limitations in the current practice of the system
without being "negative" as you suggest?
When you mentioned "the roadmap" I was taken aback. What roadmap?
"Enterprise" license holders and those who have the money to travel to
conferences are undoubtedly more in the know because they are paying for
it, but ordinary "Studio" license holders such as myself have little
idea of what Rev plans to do. It is therefore very difficult for us to
arrange our programming lives.
I didn't say we paid for bugfixes. I really don't know what we actually
pay for, either directly or indirectly. It's not clear to me. What I did
suggest is that upgrades should be (well) paid for and that they should
not be for the purpose of bugfixing. Bugfixing should be done constantly
in between releases. Certainly, this would make the situation a bit clearer.
As for the rest of your post, the only thing I will say is that I feel
there is no need to put me into the category of the various stereotypes
you mention, since they are all negative and you are obviously "bugged"
about something. I am not one of your bugs, so please try and trust my
intentions a little more.
Let me just ask you a few questions. In relation to current practices as
they are seen by ordinary users:
1. Is there a need for regular Rev updates or not?
2. To know that a bug has been "fixed" doesn't help if the fix cannot be
implemented within a reasonable time. Is "turnaround" in this sense
anywhere near adequate at the moment?
If you tell me that such wonderful things are already in the pipeline,
then I am very pleased. But Rev didn't tell me.
More information about the use-livecode