On Jan 22, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Guyren Howe wrote:
But I think the crude indicator of how many votes a feature gets,
along with monitoring discussion on the NUG and the forums, and
then intelligent and caring folks at REAL doing their best with
that information will (and does) produce reasonable outcomes.
Mostly true.
It's just a though to see if the feedback system can't be improved
somehow.
A better way to find / browse reports to reduce the number of
duplicates would be good too
The most recent release fixed a large number of bugs. There was
clamour for a bug fix release and we got one.
Indeed it did and I made no comment about that.
It happened to not fix a number that were of particular interest to
me but did fix a couple that I had a low interest in.
I just had no way to tell REAL that about the reports I had signed on
to.
If you're a serious developer and something is a serious problem
for you, reasonable means are provided for you to have your problem
fixed (ie the developer program). Seems to me, the REAL folks
balance things pretty well, on the whole.
IF your bug happens to be a quick fix it works.
I've not rejoined for some time because all the bugs I'd ever asked
about getting fixed under it were never quick fixes.
I never needed anything else from the program
So this seems like a lot of busy work to set up and use, with no
significant gains.
Every bug reporting / feedback system I've used has had a
"importance" field where you get to say what the importance of a bug is.
The feed back system lacks that and I'd like to see that incorporated
with some way to prevent people from saying every one of their bugs
is high priority as that just makes that indicator useless.
And, since this is just in the feedback system you get to sign on to
the request or not :)
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
