Hello Natasha! On Sunday, June 26, 2005, 7:56 PM, you wrote:
>>> ... BayesIt error was detected a few days later after the release >>> - not after a few hours. >> I think that Natasha spotted it within a few hours--unfortunately, >> she put it in a correction, posted to herself, of her earlier post >> to Maxim saying .31 was running fine. Rather than directly posting >> the bug to Maxim. > Quite so. I wanted to recant my earlier acceptance, and in so doing > I made it more difficult than it should have been for Maxim to > notice my report. It would have been more sensible to respond > directly, quoting my original MID. But, at least you did recant! We are under time pressures, also, as we try to respond to the programmers' posts. So--even though I imposed on our friendship, Natasha, by citing your post--I appreciate immensely the sweet spirit in which you have replied to my comment. > BTW, anyone have a handy macro to quote one message but reply to the > initiator of the thread to which it belongs? (Actually, what I'd > like is something similar to the PUT macro, but for MIDs, but I > don't think this can be done with QTs.) I hope you will get a response to this. I would find such a macro handy, also. >>> "Sufficient time" - that's the expression, that is interpreted in very >>> different ways from all of us. ;) >> I agree with you that sufficient time should mean at least one >> day--especially given how the beta testers are scattered across all >> the time zones of the world. > Agreed. >>>> You may be sure that if he doesn't, he will hear from, at least, >>>> me. I am trying to look out for Maxim's and for RitLab's best >>>> interest all the time, wearing both my hats, as customer and as >>>> beta tester. :) >>> Nice Mary. I'll stand with you. >> Yay! :girlcheer: > Count me in, too. Good! And I hope Maxim will keep on asking us general questions about whether we think a particular beta is ready for adding to the public download page, as well as specific questions that he needs our help with. >>>> 9Val is a developer, isn't he? >>> It sems to me he is one. A very good and competent one. >> He's my hero! > I take my hat off to 9Val, Maxim and the entire crew! ... Oh, me too! I have seen more than one really knowledgeable person, like you, Natasha, characterize them as brilliant programmers, with very few peers in the business. > ... I've seen a few recent comments worrying about the fact that > sometimes fixes to one aspect of TB can 'break' seemingly unrelated > aspects. FWIW, my personal opinion is that this isn't surprising. As > I think I may have rambled about at other times, the complexity of > the Windows APIs (especially since TB supports multiple Windows > versions) and various email standards the guys are trying to work > with makes development rather complex and (extrapolating from > experiences on other projects) perhaps forces them into workarounds > which may later prove unstable. Which explains why what 'seems' > unrelated isn't always what 'is' unrelated. The team are also > working under time and (presumably) budget constraints, which means > they perhaps don't always get the choice of what to fix or even how > to fix it. So it's only when these instabilities arise that they can > go back and repair those parts of the design which are now causing > the problems. This is also why some things which may seem 'trivial' > at the time are repaired before other, apparently 'more important' > items are looked at: those 'trivial' items may actually be > prerequisites (direct, apparent or otherwise, to repairs of the > larger items. Ah. A very cogent analysis. Thanks--it makes quite a few things clearer to me. > And this is where we, as the beta team, come into the picture: users > add that extra level of complexity (as if there weren't already > enough :) ) that can almost never be accounted for in the lab for > such a complex project, no matter how hard the team may try. We use > different features of TB, different mail servers and protocols, and > our cultural differences give us different perspectives on what's > important to us in an email program. So when Maxim asks, "Is 3.5.31 > generally better than 3.5.30?", he knows RL think so, but also is > aware that the diversity of beta testers makes us a much more > demanding jury. He's also signalling to us that we're important to > RL as well as acknowledging previous hastiness in uploading files to > the public download site. I applaud him for all these reasons. Yes. This was what I was trying to say. And you have really given it life, mentioning all the details of our diversity. >>> It was just a note, that me didn't really understand the question, >>> nor it's origin. >> It will help all the developers who post here, and they will >> perhaps be able to tell us what they want in a little bit more >> detail, in the futre. Future. Mary, the typo wielder. > Agreed. Detail is as valuable in questions as it is in answers. Very well put! May I steal that beautifully coined aphorism as a tag line? :) -- Best regards, Mary The Bat 3.5.0.31 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.5.31 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
