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: ica2ph@alpha1.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de (Peter Hermann) Subject: Re: Root of a GNAT problem (was: Gnat v3.05 bug or compilation problem Date: 1996/12/10 Message-ID: <58ja35$g3m@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203294955 references: <58h301$gad@alfali.enst-bretagne.fr> <58h6n2$2hbi@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <1996Dec9.110039.1@eisner> organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-12-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar (dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu) wrote: : 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. Which is clearly not justified. ACT is certainly not responsible for impudent children. I simply asked for more transparency. The process became too opaque for non-customers. Robert's statements deserve agreement, no doubt. But I can't identify and trace my item submitted, that's all. In summary I made the same good experience like Norman H. Cohen wrote, therefore I really can't complain. However I think, that ACT does not have to do more work when preserving the visibility of the bug report mechanism of the old days. I even see an advantage: The low priority assignments for a non-customer could drive him to a customer ;-) -- Peter Hermann Tel:+49-711-685-3611 Fax:3758 ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de Pfaffenwaldring 27, 70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)