Strange Characters...

[Richmond]

On 14/05/15 20:38, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 5/14/2015 4:37 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> RunRev's recent track record seems to be that bugs (at least those
>> submitted by users) get picked at "random()"
>
> A while back I posted the priorities used for bug fixes. They are not 
> random; by necessity they are triaged.

That's good to know.

Is it possible to have a list of them ALL and their priorities and 
approximate fix-dates?

>
>> I think one of the best things RunRev could do at the moment is
>> release a list of unsolved bugs alongside a schedule for sorting them
>> out
>
> The amount of effort that would take would substantially reduce the 
> time available for the actual bug fixes, especially since it would 
> have to be updated daily. There is also the fact that you never know 
> how long it will take to fix a bug until you've fixed it. 

A once-off list (i.e. not one updated daily) with approx. dates would 
inspire more confidence than keeping completely shtum.

> However, the team has done a very good job lately of testing and 
> responding to every report promptly as it is opened. If you want a 
> list of unresolved bugs so you can view their progress, it is trivial 
> to get one by simply searching the database.
>
> But don't judge the team by the number of unresolved reports you see.

I'm not: I know that, whatever appearances may be (!!!!!), the folk in 
Edinburgh are working very hard.

What my "beef" is about is that the work is not presented in a way that 
is easy for end-users to understand.

> Before the new review system was implemented, responses were more 
> haphazard. After the implementation, LC asked everyone with old bugs 
> in the database to review them and close them if they were no longer 
> relevant. Many of us did that but many did not. A lot of those ancient 
> reports are now moot because subsequent engines have made them 
> non-issues, but they sit there in limbo because the original author 
> has not dealt with them. Again, the amount of effort required to go 
> through all those, re-test, and remove them is substantial. Anyone 
> with unresolved old bugs should test against the new engine and either 
> close or update the report. The team would like to remove all 
> nonrelevant material.

The effort may be substantial, but it may be justified.

------------- TANGENTIAL ILLUSTRATIVE PERSONAL ANECDOTE FOLLOWS 
-------------------

The computers in my school have been limping along in a way that means 
they are perfectly satisfactory for the way I use them at
present . . .

Now, come 8th June I am going to have 2 teams of "Tinies" (age 8 -12), 
and 1 team of "not-so-tinies" (age 12-16) learning some basic
stuff with Livecode .  .  . and the machines as they are 'could' do that 
. . . BUT. frankly, they are mainly running 4 and 5 year old Linux
systems, and are a bit "hairy round the nostrils".

So, "Lucky Richmond" has a choice:

1. Just let things roll along for another year.

2. Have a "very dirty weekend" backing up the stuff on the machines, 
carting them all home (no internet access available at school),
blanking them, rejigging each one with a long-term support version of 
Xubuntu or MINT, putting all the stuff back, making sure they
all have GIMP and InkScape installed, and Livecode 7.0.4. This involves 
10 machines, and, as I have only 4 spare monitors at home,
I can only "do" four at once, and each machine will take 4 to 5 hours.

In terms of how much I get paid there is no difference . . .

I'm going to have a "very dirty weekend", better get out my leopard-skin 
posing briefs :)

The effort WILL be justified as everything will be ship-shape and 
Bristol fashion and the chances of something going
"Icky-Fatang" during the progging classes will be minimised.

----------------     END OF REASONABLY PROLIX TANGENTIALISM 
----------------------

Yeah, I know, it's a %&*$#, but a bit of retrenchment is not always a 
bad thing.

Richmond.