Discussion:
On the Democratic Operation of Bugzilla
(too old to reply)
Dan Shafer
2006-02-23 19:07:46 UTC
Permalink
In another thread, Sarah Reichelt made the following observations
about Bugzilla in response to Xavier's complaints about stability of
I have looked at your list of reported bugs in Bugzilla. I find 126
unfixed bugs reported by you (though some seem to be duplicates)
however only 4 of them have any votes. Of those 4, 1 is rated as
trivial, 2 as minor and only 1 as major. None of your bugs has been
sufficiently important to get ANY votes from you. If you do not attach
much importance to them and no-one else has felt them to be relevant
enough for a vote, then the Rev development team probably thinks there
are more important issues to concentrate on.
This provided me with an opportunity to say something I've been
meaning to say for some time but never had a "trigger" for.

While I am absolutely certain that RR doesn't rely solely or even
primarily on Bugzilla to set its bug-fixing agenda, I am equally sure
they do take it into account. And that's a shame because the reality
is that the number of people who use Rev regularly who: (a) are aware
of Bugzilla and its purpose; (b) have purused the bug list in an
effort to ferret out those that are most important to them and apply
votes to them; and (c) monitor it on an ongoing basis so they know
which bugs are being fixed and therefore where they can reapply their
votes is minuscule. I don't do that. I'm not sure how many others do.

If I create a new bug entry in Bugzilla, it would not even occur to me
to vote for it. By posting it and giving it a rating, I think I *am*
voting on it. Particularly given that I have a limited number of
points to allocate among bugs, I have to be judicious. (Until a few
months ago, I didn't even know I could change my votes around even
though it's perfectly clear from a close examination of the program
that you can do that.)

So I don't think the status of bugs in Bugzilla is an adequate
representation of the state of the product. I'm sure there are a ton
of suspected bugs that their discoverers never file because: (a)
they're not really sure they're bugs and confirming that would take
too much time; (b) they don't find Bugzilla a very welcoming
environment in which to post bugs (even with the wonderful Revzilla
around to take away a lot of the pain); and/or (c) they don't think
about it.

I'd be all for making Bugzilla far more useful. I even have some ideas
for how to do that. But frankly that's up to RunRev, not the
community, and my guess is that they have enough To Do Lists that they
don't need any more ideas from me!

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
Jim Ault
2006-02-23 19:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Shafer
I'd be all for making Bugzilla far more useful. I even have some ideas
for how to do that. But frankly that's up to RunRev, not the
community, and my guess is that they have enough To Do Lists that they
don't need any more ideas from me!
Time, effort.
I don't use Bug or Revzilla.
My category is not 'developer' or 'exorcist' since I only do my own tools in
a limited way to achieve a profitable(?) result. No time to complete the
due diligence to 'recipe' a bug report, especially since it is probably
already reported.

I will very likely never know enough about Rev to do a good bug report. I
would most likely not use the correct term to do a search to find all bugs
related to groups-management anyway.

It would be nice if there was a wiki that would categorize bugs
(text-in-fields, icons, standalones, Win32 vs Mac) that would read more like
a book or simple outline.

Anyway, hearing about them on the list is the only way I really come in
contact with them, so I agree with Dan, Bugzilla is not useful for me.

Don't have a good solution, but did have time to vote on this issue by
typing this email.

Jim Ault
Las Vegas
Post by Dan Shafer
In another thread, Sarah Reichelt made the following observations
about Bugzilla in response to Xavier's complaints about stability of
I have looked at your list of reported bugs in Bugzilla. I find 126
unfixed bugs reported by you (though some seem to be duplicates)
however only 4 of them have any votes. Of those 4, 1 is rated as
trivial, 2 as minor and only 1 as major. None of your bugs has been
sufficiently important to get ANY votes from you. If you do not attach
much importance to them and no-one else has felt them to be relevant
enough for a vote, then the Rev development team probably thinks there
are more important issues to concentrate on.
This provided me with an opportunity to say something I've been
meaning to say for some time but never had a "trigger" for.
While I am absolutely certain that RR doesn't rely solely or even
primarily on Bugzilla to set its bug-fixing agenda, I am equally sure
they do take it into account. And that's a shame because the reality
is that the number of people who use Rev regularly who: (a) are aware
of Bugzilla and its purpose; (b) have purused the bug list in an
effort to ferret out those that are most important to them and apply
votes to them; and (c) monitor it on an ongoing basis so they know
which bugs are being fixed and therefore where they can reapply their
votes is minuscule. I don't do that. I'm not sure how many others do.
If I create a new bug entry in Bugzilla, it would not even occur to me
to vote for it. By posting it and giving it a rating, I think I *am*
voting on it. Particularly given that I have a limited number of
points to allocate among bugs, I have to be judicious. (Until a few
months ago, I didn't even know I could change my votes around even
though it's perfectly clear from a close examination of the program
that you can do that.)
So I don't think the status of bugs in Bugzilla is an adequate
representation of the state of the product. I'm sure there are a ton
of suspected bugs that their discoverers never file because: (a)
they're not really sure they're bugs and confirming that would take
too much time; (b) they don't find Bugzilla a very welcoming
environment in which to post bugs (even with the wonderful Revzilla
around to take away a lot of the pain); and/or (c) they don't think
about it.
I'd be all for making Bugzilla far more useful. I even have some ideas
for how to do that. But frankly that's up to RunRev, not the
community, and my guess is that they have enough To Do Lists that they
don't need any more ideas from me!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
Jerry Muelver
2006-03-01 16:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Ault
It would be nice if there was a wiki that would categorize bugs
(text-in-fields, icons, standalones, Win32 vs Mac) that would read more like
a book or simple outline.
You mean, like http://revdocwiki.wikispaces.com/ ?

---- Jerry Muelver

Peter T. Evensen
2006-02-23 19:24:37 UTC
Permalink
I would also like to point out that 2.7 no longer contains a link to
Bugzilla. The support option in Help (on Windows) goes to
http://support.runrev.com/ which does not have a link to
http://support.runrev.com/bugzilla/, so there isn't even a good way to get
to bugzilla without using the plug-in, or having book-marked the URL, or
simply remembering the URL.

It seems that there is no way for a new user to know about Bugzilla, unless
they ask.

Or am I missing something?

Peter T. Evensen
http://www.PetersRoadToHealth.com
314-629-5248 or 888-628-4588
Garrett Hylltun
2006-02-23 20:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Shafer
This provided me with an opportunity to say something I've been
meaning to say for some time but never had a "trigger" for.
Ditto!

Ok, so I spent all this money for Rev, and I would expect that any
bug report sent to them would be taken seriously and that it would be
actively followed up by the company. I can understand setting
priorities depending on the severity of the bug, but having the users
rate and vote? I thought I was purchasing a product, not getting
married to a second wife! Bugzilla seems like it relies far too much
on the users and not enough on the company. Users should not have to
do such things, especially after spending this much money on the
product. It's almost absurd, more so if just because a bug is not
rated hight or voted on by anyone else, then is that to say that it
may get completely ignored?

So it seems this is the scenario; Pay hefty price for Rev, pay hefty
price for updates?!/upgrades, Pay heavy for extras, and make the
users who paid for the product work for you by making them search out
all the bugs, post them for you, rate them for you, vote on them for
you, follow up on them for you..... To quote "Jubel Early", a not so
famous bounty hunter from a not so famous TV series that's long since
been canceled... "Does that seem right to you?"

I can understand the hefty base price of the product, I can't agree
with having to pay for damned updates! where fixes that they should
be responsible for should be taken care of by them. I can understand
a small fee for upgrades, but not the amount they are asking for.

But what upsets me the most is depending on the paying customers to
help them track down bugs! What the hell are they doing with the
money? And what the hell are they doing releasing a product that is
already known to have bugs still in it! They should be paying
testers for this and not raping the paying customers for this work.
With the prices they are charging for everything, we shouldn't even
be having this conversation at all! If a user finds a bug, he/she
should be able to simply report the bug to Rev either via email or a
bug report form on their site, and they should take care of
everything from there! That bug should be gone by the next update of
the product.

I'm sorry for being a bit over the edge, but I've been in this
business myself, and this really makes me mad. You don't release
products if you know it still contains bugs! You don't upgrade your
product unless the upgrade fixes all the prior bugs. Updates are to
fix bugs and issues that you didn't catch earlier, that somehow got
past your beta testing team, and updates are free since you're fixing
your own mistakes, not mistakes of the customer. Upgrades are not
like going from 1.1 to 1.2, but from 1.x to 2.x Upgrades are when
the product has had some major changes done to it, improvements and
new features over the previous version.

I'm really starting to regret my purchasing Rev now. I'm feeling
like I've been ripped off. Rev is a nice product, but if this is how
the company is going to operate, then I'm not going to be updating/
upgrading. And I doubt that Rev is going to change their business
practice since it seems so many people tolerate it and continue to
give them money for releasing a product that will always have bugs in
it.

Runtime... Stop charging for updates! Fix all the bugs and release
an update, then work on an upgrade when all the bugs are fixed. Go
ahead and charge for upgrades. Dump the 'zilla stuff and setup your
own internal bug tracking system so you guys can take care of this
and leave the customers out of the process. Beat the crap out of
your beta testing team for allowing all this stuff to get through to
the customers.

Sorry to everyone else for my angry post to the mailing list. If a
hand slapping is due to me for this, I'll gladly take it as I should.

Best regards,
-Garrett
Thomas McGrath III
2006-02-23 20:37:42 UTC
Permalink
No comment about how you should be slapped.

I do think that using the bug reporting is an optional thing and that
you are not required to do so and that REV does not 'rely' on it as
much as giving the users a voice in it. I wish Office would do this
or Adobe.

Tom
Post by Garrett Hylltun
Post by Dan Shafer
This provided me with an opportunity to say something I've been
meaning to say for some time but never had a "trigger" for.
Ditto!
Ok, so I spent all this money for Rev, and I would expect that any
bug report sent to them would be taken seriously and that it would
be actively followed up by the company. I can understand setting
priorities depending on the severity of the bug, but having the
users rate and vote? I thought I was purchasing a product, not
getting married to a second wife! Bugzilla seems like it relies
far too much on the users and not enough on the company. Users
should not have to do such things, especially after spending this
much money on the product. It's almost absurd, more so if just
because a bug is not rated hight or voted on by anyone else, then
is that to say that it may get completely ignored?
So it seems this is the scenario; Pay hefty price for Rev, pay
hefty price for updates?!/upgrades, Pay heavy for extras, and make
the users who paid for the product work for you by making them
search out all the bugs, post them for you, rate them for you, vote
on them for you, follow up on them for you..... To quote "Jubel
Early", a not so famous bounty hunter from a not so famous TV
series that's long since been canceled... "Does that seem right to
you?"
I can understand the hefty base price of the product, I can't agree
with having to pay for damned updates! where fixes that they should
be responsible for should be taken care of by them. I can
understand a small fee for upgrades, but not the amount they are
asking for.
But what upsets me the most is depending on the paying customers to
help them track down bugs! What the hell are they doing with the
money? And what the hell are they doing releasing a product that
is already known to have bugs still in it! They should be paying
testers for this and not raping the paying customers for this
work. With the prices they are charging for everything, we
shouldn't even be having this conversation at all! If a user finds
a bug, he/she should be able to simply report the bug to Rev either
via email or a bug report form on their site, and they should take
care of everything from there! That bug should be gone by the next
update of the product.
I'm sorry for being a bit over the edge, but I've been in this
business myself, and this really makes me mad. You don't release
products if you know it still contains bugs! You don't upgrade
your product unless the upgrade fixes all the prior bugs. Updates
are to fix bugs and issues that you didn't catch earlier, that
somehow got past your beta testing team, and updates are free since
you're fixing your own mistakes, not mistakes of the customer.
Upgrades are not like going from 1.1 to 1.2, but from 1.x to 2.x
Upgrades are when the product has had some major changes done to
it, improvements and new features over the previous version.
I'm really starting to regret my purchasing Rev now. I'm feeling
like I've been ripped off. Rev is a nice product, but if this is
how the company is going to operate, then I'm not going to be
updating/upgrading. And I doubt that Rev is going to change their
business practice since it seems so many people tolerate it and
continue to give them money for releasing a product that will
always have bugs in it.
Runtime... Stop charging for updates! Fix all the bugs and
release an update, then work on an upgrade when all the bugs are
fixed. Go ahead and charge for upgrades. Dump the 'zilla stuff
and setup your own internal bug tracking system so you guys can
take care of this and leave the customers out of the process. Beat
the crap out of your beta testing team for allowing all this stuff
to get through to the customers.
Sorry to everyone else for my angry post to the mailing list. If a
hand slapping is due to me for this, I'll gladly take it as I should.
Best regards,
-Garrett
Thomas J McGrath III
***@adelphia.net

Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com

Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html

Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear

Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com

SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html
Richard Gaskin
2006-02-23 22:10:42 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry for being a bit over the edge, but I've been in this business
myself, and this really makes me mad. You don't release products if you
know it still contains bugs! You don't upgrade your product unless the
upgrade fixes all the prior bugs.
How many known bugs are in OS X?


BTW: Nice t-shirt ;)
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
___________________________________________________________
***@FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
Rob Cozens
2006-02-23 23:04:46 UTC
Permalink
I can understand setting priorities depending on the severity of the
bug, but having the users rate and vote? I thought I was purchasing a
product, not getting married to a second wife! Bugzilla seems like it
relies far too much on the users and not enough on the company. Users
should not have to do such things, especially after spending this much
money on the product. It's almost absurd, more so if just because a
bug is not rated hight or voted on by anyone else, then is that to say
that it may get completely ignored?
What is the world coming to when users complain when the company that
provides them a product gives them input in determining where resources
should be spent on maintaining and updating that product?

Runtime Revolution Ltd. gives every user of its product an opportunity
to influence the decision on how limited R&D and Support resources are
allocated. I doubt that you can name many other products you use whose
manufacturer give you that same opportunity.

Is there some better means of making that determination than asking the
people who use the product? Market survey? Ouija Board?

Especially a product like RunRev, which appeals to such a broad range
of uses and users. Given the documented errors and enhancement
requests, how does one decide where to focus time and resources. If
each RR user complied a personal bug fix/enhancement request list, to
what degree would those lists overlap? How many users would prefer my
list to yours, and vice versa?

If you were in charge of RR development, wouldn't you like to spend
your resources on areas of relatively high importance to a relatively
large proportion of users? How do you ascertain that without asking
users?

Jim begins "I don't use Bug or Revzilla." and ends "Bugzilla is not
useful for me." Dan writes "I'd be all for making Bugzilla far more
useful. I even have some ideas
for how to do that. But frankly that's up to RunRev, not the
community,"

I see it the other way around. RR has offered its user community an
opportunity to influence resource allocation and bug tracking; but it
can't work without the participation of that user community.

Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
Garrett Hylltun
2006-02-24 01:00:06 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Rob Cozens
What is the world coming to when users complain when the company
that provides them a product gives them input in determining where
resources should be spent on maintaining and updating that product?
Aiding in the direction of the product is one thing.
Post by Rob Cozens
Runtime Revolution Ltd. gives every user of its product an
opportunity to influence the decision on how limited R&D and
Support resources are allocated.
This is something I don't understand..... You say "limited R&D" which
I don't see. Not with the prices of the products being offered.
I've seen smaller companies with products under 100 USD handle these
things far better. If Runtime has a problem with finances that they
are not capable of handling these issues on their own, then there is
something wrong going on within the company.

This is not about influencing the direction of the product. This is
about how bug reports should be directly given to the company, the
company should track it internally and insure that it's taken care
of. Users should not have to do anything else, that's why they pay
Runtime for the product.
Post by Rob Cozens
I doubt that you can name many other products you use whose
manufacturer give you that same opportunity.
Visual DialogScript, PureBasic are two that come to mind
immediately. I assure you I can probably compile a list of products
that far exceed your imagination. But again, you are talking of
another animal completely. All companies are happy to listen to
their customers with regards to the direction of the product, but
none of them ask the customers to help them find their bugs and keep
track of them. Even open source and freeware products don't ask of
this. Gambas is one that fits here.
Post by Rob Cozens
Is there some better means of making that determination than asking
the people who use the product? Market survey? Ouija Board?
Again, this is about bugs and how Rev is to take care of them, not
the users. Give direction for the product future is a different story.
Post by Rob Cozens
Especially a product like RunRev, which appeals to such a broad
range of uses and users. Given the documented errors and
enhancement requests, how does one decide where to focus time and
resources. If each RR user complied a personal bug fix/enhancement
request list, to what degree would those lists overlap? How many
users would prefer my list to yours, and vice versa?
What good are enhancements if the bugs are not fixed?
Post by Rob Cozens
If you were in charge of RR development, wouldn't you like to spend
your resources on areas of relatively high importance to a
relatively large proportion of users? How do you ascertain that
without asking users?
Fixing bugs is highly important!

And if I were involved directly with the company, I would have
insured that all bugs were taken care of before upgrading the
product. I probably would have fired the alpha testing team and the
beta testing team, as well as the person who's let the product go to
market knowing there were unfixed bugs in it.
Post by Rob Cozens
Jim begins "I don't use Bug or Revzilla." and ends "Bugzilla is not
useful for me." Dan writes "I'd be all for making Bugzilla far
more useful. I even have some ideas
for how to do that. But frankly that's up to RunRev, not the
community,"
Jim shouldn't have to be concerned about any 'zilla. He should be
concerned with using his product and being happy with it.
Post by Rob Cozens
I see it the other way around. RR has offered its user community
an opportunity to influence resource allocation and bug tracking;
but it can't work without the participation of that user community.
Something the community really has no business being involved with.
That's the job of the company providing the product. If I wanted to
be a part of their process, I would have asked for a job there or
bought stock in their company or something. I bought a product that
I thought was a stable product, something I could use and not have to
waste time with following up on a 'zilla system to see what bugs are
listed, fixed, ignored, voted on, rated etc. It's absurd that a user
would have to deal with this. Taking part in where a company puts
forth it's time and resources is up to the company and users
shouldn't have to deal with this. I didn't pay hundreds of USD for
this! Then I'm expected to pay for bug fixes that I had no hand in
creating in the first place? I'll pay for enhancements, but tossing
in enhancements in updates is not fair play at all, and asking users
to pay for updates that fix the companies own mistakes is just
wrong. Upgrades, sure, but not updates. Asking users to be more
involved in the bug reporting system is asking too much for such an
expensive product.

I guess I'm not specifically upset with the bug issue, but with
several issues. My views of how things should be are not that of the
majority. I can be extreme in my views about products should be free
of bugs and such. And usually "you get what you pay for" holds true,
but I'm feeling cheated here. Typically if you pay hundreds, you get
a sold product, and I don't see that now. And I see a company that
may or may not have some of it's own internal management and priority
issues.

You know, I paid only $69 USD for PureBasic and they work hard to fix
any and all bugs pointed out to them. One day I posted a bug to
their forum, and two days later a fix was available for download.
And I don't pay for updates and upgrades. And then I sit here and
wonder why I paid so much money for Rev.

Well, I should stop. My participation in this subject probably has
been less than productive to everyone on this list, and Runtime
itself. I'm not a bad fellow, but I can get really upset with some
things. So my apologies to all and I will not reply to this subject
unless specifically invited to return to the subject. Otherwise, if
anyone wishes to further this subject with me directly, feel free to
email me at ***@hotmail.com

-Garrett
Rob Cozens
2006-02-24 16:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Hylltun
This is not about influencing the direction of the product. This is
about how bug reports should be directly given to the company, the
company should track it internally and insure that it's taken care of.
Users should not have to do anything else, that's why they pay
Runtime for the product.
RR bug reports are directly given to the company by posting a report in
the Bugzilla database... preferably after checking to see if the
problem has been previously reported. The information recorded [except
votes] is the same information that would be asked of you if you were
reporting the problem via telephone.

RRLtd and any interested users can track bugs internally by querying
BZ. Once a problem is reported, one does not _have_ to do anything
else.

I believe the crux of your issue is the "insure that it's taken care
of", and I suggest that has little to do with the way it's reported and
tracked. How do you suppose RRLtd would process bug reports submitted
by telephone? Don't you imagine the Tech Support person taking the
call would enter the information in a bug database like BZ?

So unless you take issue with going online and reporting a bug to BZ
instead of taking up the time of someone who could be fixing bugs but
instead must sit on the phone and ask you to relate the information, or
take issue with the fact that users as well as RRLtd staff can track
the information, I don't see BZ as the culprit.

I get the feeling that you are taken back by the number of items on the
BZ bug list and the amount of time some items remain unresolved.

Based on my thirty year's experience in the field, I suggest that there
is NO bug-free application of any scope or complexity on the market
today. When I ran DG Minis for Oakland Police Department, I would
receive monthly a 350+ page book listing all known bugs in Data General
software. Those bugs did not prevent us from performing our daily dp
tasks.

Most companies keep their bug lists internal, but virtually all
companies have them. The philosophy of the original owners of FlexWare
was "we won't make our bug list public because people will think our
product is no good" (and perhaps Dan and others' panning of BZ may
prove their point). What I saw was people responding "what's the
matter with the people at Flexware that they don't know about this
problem" when they crashed the system doing something they wouldn't
have done if they had been warned on a bug list.

Counting bugs gives one little indication of the overall quality of the
product without taking into account their nature and severity. How
many "the rectangle graphic is rendered one pixel short on XP systems
when the width is odd" bugs equate to one "Rev 2.7.1 crashes in Win XP
when I copy to the Clipboard" bug? How many bugs in BZ are of the
former type? How many are the latter? I think you need to know this
before you can make quality judgments of Revolution based on the number
of entries in Bugzilla.

Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
Alex Tweedly
2006-02-23 23:57:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Hylltun
Post by Dan Shafer
This provided me with an opportunity to say something I've been
meaning to say for some time but never had a "trigger" for.
Ditto!
Yeah - I tried to respond to Sarah's email saying more or less the same
thing, but just couldn't express myself well enough, so never sent it. I
think the bug-voting system should never be more than a tiny hint to the
people setting priorities within RunRev.
Post by Garrett Hylltun
<snip>
But what upsets me the most is depending on the paying customers to
help them track down bugs! What the hell are they doing with the
money? And what the hell are they doing releasing a product that is
already known to have bugs still in it! They should be paying
testers for this and not raping the paying customers for this work.
With the prices they are charging for everything, we shouldn't even
be having this conversation at all! If a user finds a bug, he/she
should be able to simply report the bug to Rev either via email or a
bug report form on their site, and they should take care of
everything from there! That bug should be gone by the next update of
the product.
I think it's impractical to say that all known bugs will be fixed. Not
all can be reproduced reliably, bugs reported late in the day can't be
fixed without delaying the release, some bugs are unimportant and can
reasonably be left until other work is to be done in that area of the
code, etc.

And more importantly, there is plenty of evidence that people buying
software will prefer software with new features and some bugs over
software that is bug-free but lacking features. So too strict a "fix all
bugs" policy is a sure way to fail to attract customers (as is too
strong a tendency to add features without fixing bugs). Small products
can hope to achieve this, large ones can't. RR needs to strike a
balance; and while I think they are not getting it quite right, I can't
say that they're getting it all wrong either.
Post by Garrett Hylltun
I'm sorry for being a bit over the edge, but I've been in this
business myself, and this really makes me mad. You don't release
products if you know it still contains bugs! You don't upgrade your
product unless the upgrade fixes all the prior bugs. Updates are to
fix bugs and issues that you didn't catch earlier, that somehow got
past your beta testing team, and updates are free since you're fixing
your own mistakes, not mistakes of the customer. Upgrades are not
like going from 1.1 to 1.2, but from 1.x to 2.x Upgrades are when
the product has had some major changes done to it, improvements and
new features over the previous version.
I'm really starting to regret my purchasing Rev now. I'm feeling
like I've been ripped off. Rev is a nice product, but if this is how
the company is going to operate, then I'm not going to be updating/
upgrading. And I doubt that Rev is going to change their business
practice since it seems so many people tolerate it and continue to
give them money for releasing a product that will always have bugs in
it.
Runtime... Stop charging for updates! Fix all the bugs and release
an update, then work on an upgrade when all the bugs are fixed. Go
ahead and charge for upgrades.
I think each release I've seen (only been 18 months) has been a mix of
bug-fixing and new features, which is the way I think it should be. I'd
like to see more clarity on this (e.g. a list of BZ numbers fixed in the
release). But I do believe that each release has had enough features to
justify an upgrade fee. While I do find the on-going cost a bit high,
that's a business decision that RR needs to make (and which I knew about
when I got involved).
Post by Garrett Hylltun
Dump the 'zilla stuff and setup your own internal bug
tracking system so you guys can take care of this and leave the
customers out of the process. Beat the crap out of your beta testing
team for allowing all this stuff to get through to the customers.
I strongly disagree with some of this. I think that keeping the reported
bug list public is very much the right thing to do. While it can be an
aim to find bugs internally or in Beta testing, it will never completely
succeed; customers will find bugs, and it's important that there is a
process that allows them to report those, track the progress against
their reports, and see when the problems are fixed.

If some other customer (or even internal user) has found a bug, then I
want to get the benefit of that knowledge. If there is a workaround, or
even just a more precise description of the problem, then it can be very
useful to me. Some bug entries in BZ include discussion or clarification
from the RR team which is very useful.

I think RR could do with doing a serious review of the outstanding bug
list. I suspect that 20% of the open bugs could be simply dismissed (as
"cannot reproduce" and unless there is further input are not going to be
looked at again), and a further 20% could be amalgamated (duplicates -
but valuable info in more than one report). (Obviously those are wild
guess numbers - but I've had lot of experience of dealing with bug
reporting systems).

Also, I'd like to see a better separation of bug reports from
enhancements requests. Make a wild guess at 20-30% of enhancement
requests (i.e. new feature requests, not simply "filling in gaps that
should have been left in the first place" enhancement requests). Then a
bug review could reduce the open bug list by 50% - and doing that would
make BZ into a much more useful tool.

I'd also like for much better summary reporting capabilities to be made
available to the users of BZ. That would give us a much clearer view of
bug fixing progress (or lack of it); I hope that would actually go some
way to improving the feeling people have about bug treatment (though of
course there's a danger it would instead solidify the concerns people have).

I'd also have a hard and fast rule that NO new bug report should remain
"untouched" by RR personnel for more than a week. It should be read,
considered and some minimal remark or state change should be required.
Failure to do this reinforces the opinion that there is little
justification for spending time and effort reporting bugs.

And, finally, it's not the beta team that can be faulted - they're
mostly unpaid volunteers, and had little or no say in whether this stuff
was released.
--
Alex Tweedly http://www.tweedly.net
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 20/02/2006
Rob Cozens
2006-02-24 01:02:14 UTC
Permalink
All,
RR has offered its user community an opportunity to influence
resource allocation and bug tracking; but it can't work without the
participation of that user community.
Having said that, I must admit I have not done all I could in this
regard.

I post most bugs as I find them and some enhancement requests as they
occur to me.

I usually assign votes to my items, and occasionally vote for a
specific item when someone brings it up on the List.

But I have never sat down, reviewed outstanding items -- at least those
in areas of interest--, and allocated most of my votes among them.

Until you and I individually commit to do so, the potential of Bugzilla
is largely untapped and unknown.

Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
Dan Shafer
2006-02-24 19:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Garrett.....

I've spent the better part of my adult life in the software biz and I
think your reaction here was really, really extreme. You said:

"You don't release
products if you know it still contains bugs! You don't upgrade your
product unless the upgrade fixes all the prior bugs."

I don't know if I've *ever* released a piece of bug-free software. In
fact, there is some theoretical support for the argument that there's
no such thing as bug-free software, only software whose bugs have not
yet been discovered by a user. A product as complex as Revolution is
bound to have bugs forever. The issue is whether there are bugs that:
(a) prevent the product from being usable for which (b) there are no
workarounds.

I am willing to pay for upgrades and updates as long as great progress
is made toward fixing the blocker bugs at the same time. Otherwise,
the economic incentive to fix bugs goes away.

And just FWIW, I don't think Rev's pricing is outrageous at all. Given
what it allows me to accomplish, Rev is if anything underpriced. But
don't tell them that, OK?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
Lynn Fredricks
2006-02-23 22:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Shafer
While I am absolutely certain that RR doesn't rely solely or
even primarily on Bugzilla to set its bug-fixing agenda, I am
equally sure they do take it into account. And that's a shame
because the reality is that the number of people who use Rev
regularly who: (a) are aware of Bugzilla and its purpose; (b)
have purused the bug list in an effort to ferret out those
that are most important to them and apply votes to them; and
(c) monitor it on an ongoing basis so they know which bugs
are being fixed and therefore where they can reapply their
votes is minuscule. I don't do that. I'm not sure how many others do.
Hi Dan,

Its interesting, I was just discussing this with someone else.

I think most lists like this are democratic in the "tyrrany of the majority"
sort of way. Its important for Runrev to clear through these, but Bugzilla
among many methods used by many companies isnt entirely democratic because
the system is geared towards native English speakers who are proactively
involved in English. In Paradigma Software, native English speakers are in
the minority (as a few people have noticed ;-)), so I run up against this
quite often (and that we have a lot of business in various European
countries and Japan). Some language based bugs can also be, to varying
degrees, almost 100% fatal to sales.

Best regards,

Lynn Fredricks
President
Paradigma Software, Inc

Joining Worlds of Information

Deploy True Client-Server Database Solutions
Royalty Free with Valentina Developer Network
http://www.paradigmasoft.com
Gregory Lypny
2006-02-24 00:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Well put, Dan.

But I don't see the point of Bugzilla at all. Seems to me that all
bugs, big and small, should to be fixed, and a simple word to the
Revolution people ought to be enough to get the ball rolling.

Gregory Lypny

Associate Professor of Finance
John Molson School of Business
Concordia University
Montreal, Canada
Thomas McGrath III
2006-02-24 00:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Dear Gregory,

That would be like a few hundred people bringing an accountant
hundreds of boxes of receipts from the past three years (some taxable
and some not along with every bill too) and saying there was no real
need for any kind of user contributed record keeping or for that
matter questions and answers about their own expenses and then all of
them at once saying "But where's my REFUND" I want it now, why didn't
you prepare mine first, how come you did theirs first etc.

(Just to keep it real and since you are an Associate Professor of
Finance I thought the analogy would be close your heart)

Regards,

Tom
Post by Gregory Lypny
Well put, Dan.
But I don't see the point of Bugzilla at all. Seems to me that all
bugs, big and small, should to be fixed, and a simple word to the
Revolution people ought to be enough to get the ball rolling.
Gregory Lypny
Associate Professor of Finance
John Molson School of Business
Concordia University
Montreal, Canada
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Thomas J McGrath III
***@adelphia.net

Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com

Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html

Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear

Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com

SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html
Mark Smith
2006-02-24 00:56:25 UTC
Permalink
And it seems to me that all problems in the world, big and small,
should be fixed, and a simple word to the Whitehouse people should be
enough to get the ball rolling.

:)

Mark
Seems to me that all bugs, big and small, should to be fixed, and
a simple word to the Revolution people ought to be enough to get
the ball rolling.
Rob Cozens
2006-02-24 01:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Shafer
If I create a new bug entry in Bugzilla, it would not even occur to me
to vote for it. By posting it and giving it a rating, I think I *am*
voting on it.
I find posting and voting have totally different purposes.

Example: The last item I posted to BZ had to do with rectangle
graphics not being rendered correctly on Win XP when their width was an
odd number. I had already changed my rectangle graphics to even pixel
widths, and could care less if the bug is ever fixed. My post was to
alert the Run Rev Team and other developers that it exists.

So posting simply says "I found what I believe is a bug".

Rating says "This is my estimate of the severity of the bug"

Voting says "This is my relative (among outstanding bugs) priority for
fixing the bug."

I can see your point that assigning a rating while posting implies a
priority; but I'm not sure how that rating can be used to derive a
relative priority among all outstanding items.

Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
Dan Shafer
2006-02-24 19:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Rob....

Fair enough. I hadn't considered that scenario. I stand corrected.
Post by Rob Cozens
Post by Dan Shafer
If I create a new bug entry in Bugzilla, it would not even occur to me
to vote for it. By posting it and giving it a rating, I think I *am*
voting on it.
I find posting and voting have totally different purposes.
Example: The last item I posted to BZ had to do with rectangle
graphics not being rendered correctly on Win XP when their width was an
odd number. I had already changed my rectangle graphics to even pixel
widths, and could care less if the bug is ever fixed. My post was to
alert the Run Rev Team and other developers that it exists.
So posting simply says "I found what I believe is a bug".
Rating says "This is my estimate of the severity of the bug"
Voting says "This is my relative (among outstanding bugs) priority for
fixing the bug."
I can see your point that assigning a rating while posting implies a
priority; but I'm not sure how that rating can be used to derive a
relative priority among all outstanding items.
Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
Rob Cozens
2006-02-25 17:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Cozens
Voting says "This is my relative (among outstanding bugs) priority for
fixing the bug."
Consider voting as contributing to a proposed budget for RRLtd's R&D +
Support:

RRLtd gives you the opportunity to distribute $100 [ie 100 votes] among
all the outstanding bug reports and enhancement requests, with the
proviso that you could not allocate more than $5 [votes] to any single
item. RRLtd then distributes all the unallocated $ [votes] however it
sees fit.

Like government, the larger the proportion of those voting, the greater
the influence of the vote on the vote takers.

Like government, your criticism carries less validity if you don't vote.

So vote early and often!

Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company

"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."

from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
Dan Shafer
2006-02-26 01:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Since I started this conversation, I figured i ought to jump back in.

In no way do I think Rev should do way with Bugzilla. Publicly
disclosing bugs is useful. And it lends an air of credibility to one's
products that is hard to attain any other way. Getting the community's
input on what bugs are most important to fix is also a wonderful idea
and one that I'm sure informs RR's decisions about where to spend
Euros on updates. I would not want them to suspend this operation.

That said, I still think Bugzilla is too uninformative, too difficult
to use, and too obscure in the community to be as useful as it well
could be.

For openers, I'd like to see the Bugzilla database get more visibility
somehow. Perhaps on the RR site there could be a link to a listing of
the top 20 or 25 or 50 or whatever bugs. (Of course, that might not be
as positive for marketing as I'd like to see!) Maybe there could be a
mailing list on bugs and feature requests that could be a broadcast
list to which one could subscribe and which would provide regular
updates and lists. I don't know. Somewhere there's a way to approach
this.

I use RevZilla to manage my interaction with Bugzilla and I just
discovered today that if you look at voting, you can get a list of all
bugs with 1 or more votes, ranked in order by how many votes they
have. Maybe that could become the source of some more visible way to
expose Bugzilla and its contents?
Post by Rob Cozens
Post by Rob Cozens
Voting says "This is my relative (among outstanding bugs) priority for
fixing the bug."
Consider voting as contributing to a proposed budget for RRLtd's R&D +
RRLtd gives you the opportunity to distribute $100 [ie 100 votes] among
all the outstanding bug reports and enhancement requests, with the
proviso that you could not allocate more than $5 [votes] to any single
item. RRLtd then distributes all the unallocated $ [votes] however it
sees fit.
Like government, the larger the proportion of those voting, the greater
the influence of the vote on the vote takers.
Like government, your criticism carries less validity if you don't vote.
So vote early and often!
Rob Cozens
CCW, Serendipity Software Company
"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee."
from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631)
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Information Product Consultant and Author
http://www.shafermedia.com
Get my book, "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
Scott Kane
2006-02-24 01:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Hi Garrett,
Post by Garrett Hylltun
I guess I'm not specifically upset with the bug issue, but with
several issues. My views of how things should be are not
that of the
majority. I can be extreme in my views about products should
be free
of bugs and such. And usually "you get what you pay for"
holds true,
but I'm feeling cheated here. Typically if you pay hundreds,
you get
a sold product, and I don't see that now. And I see a company that
may or may not have some of it's own internal management and
priority
issues.
While I can understand your frustration I can say - categorically -
that in my twenty years plus as a programmer I'm yet to find a
development platform that had no bugs - even show stoppers! The
reason is simple. Hardware and OS and well as other running software
(anti-virus and a plethora of others). Over these years I have come
to accept this as the way it is - as do many developers - and that
an update to a prior release is usually dispatched after a given
period, where as upgrades are less frequent and generally include
bug fixes and new elements and in the process start a whole new
round of bugs. I'm yet to find a programming platform that has
zero bugs. Compared to other cross-platform tools I have used
(RealBasic, Kylix and some others) Rev is incredibly stable and
the price is right (QT C++ sells for around US $1,200 for the
basic package).

Cheers

Scott
Judy Perry
2006-02-24 07:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Is there any place where the known XP bugs are available for 2.7?

I'd forgotten that I was supposed to be thinking about things my students
might encounter, not just those things I would (in OS X), but I had one of
the brighter students today showing me wonky Rev stuff in XP.

NOTE: I also know that he did multiple wonky (even by my standards)
things before he got to the point of showing me his problems, which were
too numerous for me to recall.

I'm just looking for a quick heads-up... before I gather the gumption to
install and run XP in emulation... blech... XP when I don't even have
Classic!!!

Judy
Post by Richard Gaskin
How many known bugs are in OS X?
Judy Perry
2006-02-24 08:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Here, here!

I agree wholeheartedly, Rob.

I mean, y'all know that I have and will likely continue to do more than
my own fair share of kvetching...

But I also have to say that I have seen responsiveness on most if not all
of the issues I kvetch about most:

*Reasonable "hobbyist"/IU/educational pricing
*Improved docs (still want to see printed ones) including user guide
*pre-builts/templates (tho' I HATE templates in general, it's still
probably an improvement -- one that I'm willing to spend my students' own
money on, that is... he he!)

I'll still stand tall on my language purist soapbox, however... I mean,
why can't TTS just use HC's "speak" syntax instead of that dreadful
whatever thing it uses???

Lingo went to c.dot.syntax.hell in a very short fashion... Please don't
let Transcript follow behind Lingo!

Judy
Post by Rob Cozens
What is the world coming to when users complain when the company that
provides them a product gives them input in determining where resources
should be spent on maintaining and updating that product?
Runtime Revolution Ltd. gives every user of its product an opportunity
to influence the decision on how limited R&D and Support resources are
allocated. I doubt that you can name many other products you use whose
manufacturer give you that same opportunity.
Is there some better means of making that determination than asking the
people who use the product? Market survey? Ouija Board?
Especially a product like RunRev, which appeals to such a broad range
of uses and users. Given the documented errors and enhancement
requests, how does one decide where to focus time and resources. If
each RR user complied a personal bug fix/enhancement request list, to
what degree would those lists overlap? How many users would prefer my
list to yours, and vice versa?
If you were in charge of RR development, wouldn't you like to spend
your resources on areas of relatively high importance to a relatively
large proportion of users? How do you ascertain that without asking
users?
Scott Kane
2006-02-24 08:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Judy Perry
Lingo went to c.dot.syntax.hell in a very short fashion...
Please don't let Transcript follow behind Lingo!
I'm sure I wouldn't want to ask RR to make Rev use
dot notation - but it's a nice way to work when you
are used to it. ;-)

Scott
Gregory Lypny
2006-02-24 19:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Hello Tom,

Actually, I couldn't make a balance sheet balance for the life of me
(no offence to any accountants on this list), but I do appreciate
your thoughtful analogy. It falls short of our Bugzilla deal,
though. Accountants receive disparate (not desperate; that would be
Nortel and Enrol) audit and tax preparation jobs from clients whose
businesses and accounting practices the accounting firm often knows
little about (and sometimes the clients know little about as well).
Not so with Runtime Revolution. The Revolution team built it,
maintains it, and we use it; and my understanding is that the program
itself is a series of stacks and is based on HyperTalk (or whatever
the language is called). So, receiving a stream of e-mails with bug
reports should be quite informative for the Revolution team. Same
bug pops up in a lot of subject headers tells the team that there's a
problem affecting a lot of users, and it's a big enough of an
annoyance to get those users to write in about it. The Revolution
team then has to use its judgement about prioritizing the fixes.
They know enough about the program to do that, and there's nothing
about Bugzilla, as far as I see, that helps them do their job better.

Regards,

Gregory
Post by Thomas McGrath III
Dear Gregory,
That would be like a few hundred people bringing an accountant
hundreds of boxes of receipts from the past three years (some taxable
and some not along with every bill too) and saying there was no real
need for any kind of user contributed record keeping or for that
matter questions and answers about their own expenses and then all of
them at once saying "But where's my REFUND" I want it now, why didn't
you prepare mine first, how come you did theirs first etc.
(Just to keep it real and since you are an Associate Professor of
Finance I thought the analogy would be close your heart)
Regards,
Tom
Post by Gregory Lypny
Well put, Dan.
But I don't see the point of Bugzilla at all. Seems to me that all
bugs, big and small, should to be fixed, and a simple word to the
Revolution people ought to be enough to get the ball rolling.
Gregory Lypny
Associate Professor of Finance
John Molson School of Business
Concordia University
Montreal, Canada
Thomas McGrath III
2006-02-24 21:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Well that figures, but hey what's a good discussion without a few
analogies, even wrong ones.

Regards,

Tom
Post by Gregory Lypny
Hello Tom,
Actually, I couldn't make a balance sheet balance for the life of
me (no offence to any accountants on this list), but I do
appreciate your thoughtful analogy. It falls short of our Bugzilla
deal, though.
Thomas J McGrath III
***@adelphia.net

Lazy River Software™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com

Lazy River Metal Art™ - http://www.lazyriversoftware.com/metal.html

Meeting Wear™ - http://www.cafepress.com/meetingwear

Semantic Compaction Systems - http://www.minspeak.com

SCIconics, LLC - http://www.sciconics.com/sciindex.html
Gregory Lypny
2006-02-24 19:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mark,

I am thick as a brick, but by golly, I know when someone is poking
fun at my naivety. I live next door, so it wouldn't be sporting of
me to comment on the performance of the West Wing. I wish we had a
Prime Minister as cool as your President. I think Martin Sheen is
great.

So you think it's a fair comparison, eh? I mean the problems facing
the White House and those facing the Revolution team. I think
Revolution is desperately underpriced then.

Regards,

Gregory


On Fri, Feb 24, 2006, at 10:10 AM, use-revolution-
Post by Mark Smith
And it seems to me that all problems in the world, big and small,
should be fixed, and a simple word to the Whitehouse people should be
enough to get the ball rolling.
:)
Mark
Seems to me that all bugs, big and small, should to be fixed, and
a simple word to the Revolution people ought to be enough to get
the ball rolling.
Mark Smith
2006-02-25 02:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Gregory, please forgive my jibe. Of course it isn't a fair
comparison, but then a fair one wouldn't have been as good a joke.
'Seems to me that all bugs in ProTools should be fixed, and and a
simple word to Digidesign should get the ball rolling', while having
the same kind of optimism (and justification), just doesn't have the
breadth...

Are their really no problems, difficulties, inefficiencies or demands
made on you in your professional life that you just don't have time
to attend to as thoroughly as you or your students would like?

I think it's ridiculous the way that George Bush plays the role of
President on TV. Completely unconvincing. :)

Best

Mark
Post by Gregory Lypny
Hi Mark,
I am thick as a brick, but by golly, I know when someone is poking
fun at my naivety. I live next door, so it wouldn't be sporting of
me to comment on the performance of the West Wing. I wish we had a
Prime Minister as cool as your President. I think Martin Sheen is
great.
So you think it's a fair comparison, eh? I mean the problems
facing the White House and those facing the Revolution team. I
think Revolution is desperately underpriced then.
Regards,
Gregory
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006, at 10:10 AM, use-revolution-
Post by Mark Smith
And it seems to me that all problems in the world, big and small,
should be fixed, and a simple word to the Whitehouse people should be
enough to get the ball rolling.
:)
Mark
Seems to me that all bugs, big and small, should to be fixed, and
a simple word to the Revolution people ought to be enough to get
the ball rolling.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
David Vaughan
2006-02-25 00:59:43 UTC
Permalink
On 25/02/2006, Garrett Hylltun <***@paraboliclogic.com> and
Gregory Lypny <***@videotron.ca> wrote stuff.

Sorry to others for some repetitious elements in here but I see a
couple of basic themes in the offerings from Garrett and Gregory
(principally the former) which I wish to answer.

My credentials for so doing include not only the usual geological
ages in and around software but particularly more than ten years
spent observing or intervening in large scale projects which were off
the rails and subject to commercial dispute, always involving
millions to tens of millions of dollars. Problem management is, more
or less, how I make my living. I also designed quality assurance
facilities for a couple of government departments, one carrying a
2000-strong IT workforce and another doing highly critical defence
work. The relevance of that is a high level of familiarity with what
constitutes a faulty product to different people and how users'
requirements are obtained, interpreted and implemented.

I understand Garrett to be saying that all bugs should be fixed and
that the order of their repair is immaterial given the first
assumption. His dissatisfaction with the failure of this desirable
outcome is exacerbated by the perceived high price of the product.

However, Garrett fails to define a bug and there immediately is a
massive problem. One person's bug is another person's feature
request, a third person's "could not care less" and as often than not
is unrelated to the software in question anyway (false report). This
is unavoidable and and automatically renders any "fix all bugs"
request as, well, just plain silly. I apologise for any personal
offence anyone might take from that because I mean none, but there is
really no other description for it. There will always be a range of
items where their bug status is legitimately moot, so where do you
"draw the line"? That is a matter of commercial dispute, of priority
against demand and resources, of adequate bug definition and
ultimately of agreement about where effort is most productively
invested so that *both* parties are commercially successful.

The inexhaustible and infallible Alpha and Beta testing teams you
seek do not exist outside the halls of Valhalla [or insert preferred
paradise] and even there they are driven to drinking and argument.
Incidentally, Gregory, "the same bug" will not, alas, appear in
headers without human intervention and interpretation of the myriad
descriptions, many of them fairly incompetent, of the potential bug.

For decades we have been grabbing developers and banging their heads
against brick walls and steel pillars screaming "What about the
customer's business needs!" So, how is it that RR will make all
decisions on criticality of those bugs of which they are aware and
which they choose to define as bugs? Their problem is not that they
are too customer-driven with BZ, it is contrarily that it is damned
hard to get some decent customer input. Even Dan, who is as
experienced as anyone, confesses that he does not get motivated to
use Bugzilla. Criticality, or priority, does matter. In a bank, if
there were a bug which even in rare circumstances created an
incorrect transaction then there would be a fix and release before
virtually any other bug were managed in that software. Far from
denigrating RR for exposing their bug data to entry and voting, we
should be applauding their sound system and devising ways of making
it more acceptable to users (as attempted by RZ).

One of the most reliable pieces of large scale software I know is OS/
390 or z/OS in its current incarnation. It hosts a myriad of the most
critical commercial and defence systems around the world. How much
money would you like to lay down, Garrett, that its bug list has zero
length? Or that every one on the list is always fixed by the next
release, or that customers pay no licence fee to obtain fixes? It is
a waste of time even to imagine it, or to borrow words from your own
blog, it "is not science, it is nothing but pure religion."

Finally, the cost issue is not worth debating too much except for a
couple of observations. My daughter is currently in Edinburgh and
reports no stream of Ferrari Enzos racing about the Scottish hills
while the RR office lies silent but for the flickering stream of bug
reports. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, however, have no problem
affording such fripperies should they wish it, for they charge
hundreds of dollars for software sold to millions or tens of
millions, not to thousands.

Yet, every now and then, I see a window appear on my machine. It
says: "Would you like to report this problem to Apple?"

regards
David
Director
DVK Consult Pty Ltd
Sarah Reichelt
2006-02-25 10:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Vaughan
Sorry to others for some repetitious elements in here but I see a
couple of basic themes in the offerings from Garrett and Gregory
(principally the former) which I wish to answer.
Hear, hear! What a splendid email. I agree 100%.

And this is where the bug voting comes into play. As someone mentioned
earlier in this debate, it is possible to find and report a bug so
trivial or so easy to bypass, that the interest in fixing it is zero.
On the other hand, I find bugs that are important to me, and I see
someone else has reported it earlier. I still like to be able to log
the fact that this is important to me, even if I can't be the original
reporter.
Post by David Vaughan
Yet, every now and then, I see a window appear on my machine. It
says: "Would you like to report this problem to Apple?"
Yes, and if it appears for Safari or any other Apple app, that's fine
and I send off the report, but if it's Photoshop or something else, I
see no point in sending the report to Apple, but I have no way of
logging the problem with the actual developer.

To digress slightly, I think the reason Rev appears to have so many
bugs is because it is so versatile. We all use Rev in different ways
to do widely different projects. I ignore some bugs because I never do
the things they refer to. Others find the same bugs to be project
blockers. Then again, some people use Rev in a way that the
development team never imagined. That's great, but it means they will
be the first to strike bugs in those areas. By comparison, testing a
single-use application like a word-processor should be simple, but
they still crash :-)

I wonder is the Rev team doing itself a disservice by letting all Rev
users access the bug reports? While most people seem to value the
chance to point out problems and influence future versions, some
people regard a public bug list as an admission of failure. Maybe it
would be better to restrict bugzilla to members of the improve-rev
list or make it by invitation only.

Just a few random thoughts,
Sarah
David Vaughan
2006-02-25 23:23:04 UTC
Permalink
On 26/02/2006, at 0:50, "Sarah Reichelt" <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Post by Sarah Reichelt
To digress slightly, I think the reason Rev appears to have so many
bugs is because it is so versatile. We all use Rev in different ways
to do widely different projects. I ignore some bugs because I never do
the things they refer to. Others find the same bugs to be project
blockers. Then again, some people use Rev in a way that the
development team never imagined. That's great, but it means they will
be the first to strike bugs in those areas. By comparison, testing a
single-use application like a word-processor should be simple, but
they still crash :-)
Very true. Rev is a complex application. The productive efficiency of
writing it in itself, as it were, should not fool anyone into
believing otherwise.
Post by Sarah Reichelt
I wonder is the Rev team doing itself a disservice by letting all Rev
users access the bug reports? While most people seem to value the
chance to point out problems and influence future versions, some
people regard a public bug list as an admission of failure. Maybe it
would be better to restrict bugzilla to members of the improve-rev
list or make it by invitation only.
Perhaps rather than restricting it by fiat, RR could make access to
the bug list voluntary, just as it allows switching on access to this
list or doing so in digest or e-mail form. If you "sign up" then you
also receive notifications of changes to the bug list [optionally
Selected or All], the intention being to keep you actively involved
while you continue your interest but shutting the list off from
casual access. Sign-up would also be a moderated event. Thus, engage
those who are interested (and allow them more votes) with full
information available, still open in principle to anyone.

Meanwhile, Rev could also provide a "Problem report" option under the
Help menu where you did not have access directly to the bug list but
had the opportunity to enter a problem, rate it on its own (with
reasons), and have some lookup of related problems (based on selected
category or on key terms) so that the user could also say their
problem is the same as or like or unlike others which from their
terms appear to be related. Thus, serious simplification with
information concealment while still allowing free report.

My general idea is to retain for all the ability to report to the
real list even if that list remains behind the scenes, allow the
simplest and easiest access for anyone to do so, and to engage more
effectively by interaction the users motivated to provide comparative
voting rather than one-off voting. Give me some critique and I will
try making an enhancement proposal.

These are speculative thoughts on my part.
Post by Sarah Reichelt
Just a few random thoughts,
Sarah
regards
David
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...