From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,978f50245fc02645 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Root of a GNAT problem (was: Gnat v3.05 bug or compilation problem Date: 1996/12/10 Message-ID: <1996Dec10.070629.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203306501 x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org references: <58h301$gad@alfali.enst-bretagne.fr> <58h6n2$2hbi@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <1996Dec9.110039.1@eisner> x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN x-trace: 850219594/25373 organization: LJK Software newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-12-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , 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 dogcomputer 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