Re: Root of a GNAT problem (was: Gnat v3.05 bug or compilation problem

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <dewar.850183545@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Larry says

> A somewhat softer response, which I gather ACT does not offer to
> non-customers is "we understand the cause and hope to include a fix
> in Version X".
> 
>    I don't know where you gather false information like this :-)

Well, certainly not directly from ACT, since I have not used GNAT and
thus have never submitted a bug report.

>    Here is the usual response to reports from non-supported users:

and the text you offer, while quite helpful in explaining what seems
to be a perfectly reasonable maintenance policy indeed does not make
the claim that "we understand the cause".  Even given non-automated
response tactics, there must be occasions when acknowledgements can
only be timely by preceeding full understanding.

>    The one thing that is missing is the X, but there is a good reason for
>    this, in our experience, even unsupported users would regard this as a
>    commitment, and yell at us for not meeting it. We are very careful not
>    to make commitments that we cannot meet, and indeed we only make
>    commitments with a definite date to our customers!

I worry about getting firm promises of "fixed in version X" well
in advance of release, since it may indicate the vendor will not
retract that fix before release even if a regression is discovered
to be introduced by the fix.

Of course promising a _date_ to a supported customer is different,
since ACT could roll them a special version if that customer is
not likely to be hit by the regression, and then address the
regression later.

> One courtesy ACT could provide to all would be an automated mail
> message saying "Internet Mail worked, and we received your bug
> report entitled 'Please change method syntax to be more like C++'".
> 
>    The above message is NOT an automated mail message. I send it out manually
>    as I process the bug report. I don't like the use of automated messages
>    for this purpose. This takes a little more work, but it means that when
>    you get the above response, you know that the message really was received.

Yes, "An ACT human has seen your mail" certainly is a step above
"An ACT computer has seen your mail". I suppose this is to be
expected from those with an academic background who are familiar
with "The dog<DEL><DEL><DEL>computer ate my homework!".

>    We do supply the ACT bug tracking number to customers, and we are quite
>    happy to discuss all suggestions with our customers, although our
>    commitment to serving our customers needs does not extend to adding
>    "superior" C++ syntax to the language :-)

I guess even support customers would have to pay extra for that --
LOTS extra :-)

Larry Kilgallen