WAR ON BUGS [WAS Open Source (was Don't you just wish Rev, would do this?)]

[Bob Warren]

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 
it.
> >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.

Bob