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

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

In article <58h6n2$2hbi@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de (Peter Hermann) writes:

> Your inquiry above will lead to a repost by Robert Dewar, in which he will 
> explain that you should have reported this to report@gnat.com.
> Of course you are not a paying customer and therefore your report 
> will be of lowest priority and possibly never considered.

I am not sure how you know the original poster is not paying for support.
My opinion is that ACT should not share that information without special
permission from the customer in question.

If we agree that ACT gives priority to support customers, presumably
that includes not only defects reported by those customers but also
defects those customers are likely to encounter in the future.  It
may be that the defect reported by the original poster is judged as
quite likely to be hit by others, which presumably will escalate the
priority.

I would imagine the area where input from non-customers gets particularly
low priority is feature requests, which presumably is agreeable to all.
Second lowest might be disagreements, where interpretation of some part
of the standard is questioned.  But the example shown is neither.  It
is a situation where the compiler admits to being lost in the weeds,
and a reproducer for such makes the job for ACT potentially quite
straightforward (fix the bug).

> In the past, a very large world-wide community of volunteers sent their
> bug reports which were neatly classified and the status of the bug
> could be traced. Times have changed due to lack of sponsoring.

So what can ACT vary to provide "added value" and encourage support
contracts ?  Certainly feedback on bug status is one item (I have
no idea whether they have more feedback for paying customers).

When it comes right down to it though the only totally reliable
response possible is "fixed in version X", and that might as well
be included in the version X kit as it cannot be totally known until
version X actually is final.  I would hope that is available in an
easy-to-scan form to everyone who receives version X.

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".

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++'".

> ACT must live on the basis of the customers' money, of course.
> The important point is the traceability of a bug inquiry.

That mail message could include an ACT serial number, I suppose,
but then someone will complain that their syntax change request
never got included in a subsequent version and nobody at ACT has
chosen to engage them in a lengthy discourse regarding the obvious
superiority of the C++-style syntax !

Larry Kilgallen