Bill, I refer you to your email of 20th October 2006:
Some of you will say, "Bill it would be much more productive if you
filed
all this in Bugzilla." Well, I'm all for contributing to the
community. But
it takes time and effort to file a decent bug report. You need to have
something reproducible, supply sample files, write it up properly,
etc. This
is no trivial task. And I just don't feel that it's worthwhile. I
haven't
seen action on other serious bugs, and I haven't seen the kind of
quality
that suggests even casual inspection on the part of Rev's release
team.
That's exactly how I feel. Only the difference is that you now bear
responsibility with regard to this. Bug 3196 went through the proper
bug-reporting procedure (and in fact also had duplicate postings).
I cannot understand how this old, blocker-level bug is still in the
Release Candidate, nor can I understand how Rev's Quality Control
manager does not visit the Community Beta Forum. Maybe that forum
would have more activity if people actually saw that you visited it
regularly. Might I suggest that you post an announcement there
saying that people should email you directly instead of wasting their
time in that forum? Mind you, I did email you directly twice, and
it made no difference to this bug's status.
You might also remember saying last year in your lengthy complaints
about Rev's bugginess:
I have filed a couple reports on Rev bugs and I promised I
would file a couple more about the more easily described problems I
outlined. However, what I put into a product has a lot to do with
how well I
think the feedback will be received and acted upon. People don't
talk to
brick walls, unless they're insane.
[Bill Marriott, "Re: Bill's Boycott - was Open Letter to Rev: Quality
Is Job #1 (Vista Install)", 21st October, 2006)
Well, I feel I've been talking to a brick wall about this bug for the
past few weeks. I had no idea if my experience was unusual, so
that's why I wrote to the user list - but first I tried to use the
official bug-reporting channels.
From what you are saying, I must be in a minority. In one sense,
I'm glad to hear that. On several occasions I've suggested that
there be a list of the bugs that were fixed on each iteration of the
beta cycle. That would have enabled people to see that even if bugs
that concerned them were going unfixed, that other bugs were still
being fixed.
Each time I downloaded the beta, uninstalled the old version,
installed the new version, then I would run my tests to see if bug
3196 had been fixed (even though it wasn't listed in any of the
accompanying "Change Log.txt" files). Each time I'd be
disappointed. Eventually it dawned on me that it wasn't going to get
fixed. When I saw it was still there in the Release Candidate, and
there was no response from anyone at runrev.com about my warnings, I
realised something was seriously awry.
So as far as I'm concerned the Community Beta has clearly lost its
way. It promised to focus on removing serious bugs and introducing
the long-awaited Linux version. Instead serious, documented bugs
have been allowed into the Release Candidate, the Linux version has
been pushed out, and the emphasis seems to have turned to introducing
new features.
You can harp on about the incorporation of the Altuit products, but
they were not initially part of the Community Beta. That's a red
herring. Of course those products have to be incorporated at some
point - they were probably bought as a band-aid to give Rev added-
value, whilst your attempted consumer revolt over bugs was managed.
Since the Altuit externals had obviously been working fine for
Altuit's customers, there was no need that they be seamlessly
introduced in this Beta cycle.
Remember: Quality is Job #1
Bernard
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
