Board index » cppbuilder » Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

David Dean [CodeGear]

CBuilder Developer
 

Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe


2007-02-13 12:17:30 PM
cppbuilder38
In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Dennis Cote < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
But you said you are focused on *future* products.
Yes, BDS 2007 (or whatever it's eventually going to be called) is a
future product.
Quote
That implies you are
not focused on fixing the thousands of reported problems in your existing
products.
We're working on fixing them for the next version. Those that are
important enough and represent low risk have been (and are being)
backported for the current product.
Quote
This kind of maintenance is being left largely undone. Bug fixes
aren't being patched into and tested on the existing product.
That simply isn't true.
Quote
The compiler
has many standard compliance issues that are not going to be addressed
until the end of the development cycle.
The compiler has many standards compliance issues. Many haven't been
addressed *yet*. AIUI, there is less risk in addressing these later in
the development cycle. Would you prefer we take larger risks and have to
delay the product?
Quote
And rumour has it that you will soon release a brand spanking new PHP IDE
product.
That isn't exactly a rumor. Michael Swindell has said as much in
delphi.nontech. This product has nothing to do with the focus of the C++
Team.
Quote
I can't help but think that your focus on the development
of this new product detracted from your interest in maintaining your
existing product. It must certainly have impacted your ability to fix your
existing products.
How small of a shop do you think we are? The C++ team isn't working
on the PHP product. It hasn't been the slightest distraction.
Quote
>This complaint on the heels of a hotfix release is mystifying to me.
Given the 5 month or more time span over which this update was prepared,
and the thousands of outstanding issues in the product, it is clear that
you could have prepared, tested, and released fixes for many more issues
if the desire had been there.
You are making wild assumptions. It has nothing to do with desire.
You have no idea how much *extra* work has to go into releasing an
update or a hotfix.
Quote
The fact that many QC reports are being
marked as fixed in a future build shows that the fixes have in many cases
been developed.
Would you rather they not get fixed?
Quote
The fact that those fixes haven't been released tells me
that you have no intention of releasing them as updates for your existing
product.
That could have been said a month ago about these six fixes. It
wasn't true then. It isn't necessarily true now either.
Quote
>And just how many hotfixes do you think Borland would have released?
Probably about the same number as CodeGear has.
You're entitled to that opinion, but IME, Codegear has been much more
in tune to customer needs than Borland was. We're listening. We may be
taking longer to show you than anyone would like, but we will be showing
it.
Quote
Contrary to what you repeatedly claim, you are not supporting BDS 2006 any
better than Borland supported its products.
Time will tell.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 
 
vavan

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-13 04:12:09 PM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:23:38 -0800, "David Dean [CodeGear]"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Can you spell out the steps a little more explicitly, and put this
sorry, I don't understand how could I clarify it since english isn't
my native :(
you just try to use Find declaration in any real project regularly and
you'll hit it very soon. I just tried it again couple of minutes ago
on one of methods and it jumped to line #343 of scopeguard.h - totally
unrelated place - and file looks like it is modified again
then I asked it to find declaration of Exception and it jumped to line
#230 of sysdyn.h but this time it isn't modified
it's been happening all the time since (as Alex mentioned) that
feature was firstly introduced in bcb5 (?). sometimes it works though
and shows correct place where declaration is
--
Vladimir Ulchenko aka vavan
 
Mark Jacobs

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-13 07:38:00 PM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

vavan wrote:
Quote
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:23:38 -0800, "David Dean [CodeGear]"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Can you spell out the steps a little more explicitly, and put this
sorry, I don't understand how could I clarify it since english isn't
my native :(

you just try to use Find declaration in any real project regularly and
you'll hit it very soon. I just tried it again couple of minutes ago
on one of methods and it jumped to line #343 of scopeguard.h - totally
unrelated place - and file looks like it is modified again

then I asked it to find declaration of Exception and it jumped to line
#230 of sysdyn.h but this time it isn't modified

it's been happening all the time since (as Alex mentioned) that
feature was firstly introduced in bcb5 (?). sometimes it works though
and shows correct place where declaration is
It's actually not that bad under BCB5 SP1. The Control-Click seems to go where
it is supposed to, and never "modifies" the source file it has jumped into.
--
-
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
 

{smallsort}
vavan

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-13 07:51:24 PM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:38:00 -0000, "Mark Jacobs"
<www.jacobsm.com/mjmsg.htm?BorlandNG>wrote:
Quote
It's actually not that bad under BCB5 SP1. The Control-Click seems to go where
I was talking about my own experience which was "not that good" under
bcb5 as well
I find it very often that I report such problems that few (if any)
others also experience. perhaps I simply do weird things :)
Quote
it is supposed to, and never "modifies" the source file it has jumped into.
TBH I can't remember when "modifying" problem arose initially
--
Vladimir Ulchenko aka vavan
 
Leo Siefert

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-13 08:38:27 PM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

David Dean wrote:
Quote
I believe he is referring to hotfixes 10a-10f
which are in Hotfix Roll Up 2.
Add to the confusion Update 2 (which is required). Hotfix 2 shouldn't
be required, and wasn't any of the many times I installed it. Is it
possible that you were asked to install update 2 and not hotfix 2?
Maybe next time a different naming/numbering system could help?
Any idea when service pack 2 will be released? <g>
- Leo
 
Luigi

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-13 10:17:58 PM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Luigi Bianchi" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Wasn't his released on september 2006?
The first one was. It contained hotfix 1, and 3-9. The new one
contains an additional 6 (as well as the original 8)
Oh great!
Thank you,
Luigi
 
John Kent

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-13 11:54:46 PM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

Dennis Cote wrote:
The fact that many QC reports are being
Quote
marked as fixed in a future build shows that the fixes have in many cases
been developed. The fact that those fixes haven't been released tells me
that you have no intention of releasing them as updates for your existing
product. It appears that you intend to do as Borland has done in the past.
You will tell your users that they must buy an expensive upgrade (with new
and different problems) in order to get fixes for most of the bugs in the
product they have already purchased.

Dennis I completely agree. Loyal and long-suffering BDS users deserve
these bug-fixes urgently and for free. They have been paid for long ago.
This could turn into a PR disaster for CodeGear unless things change
very soon.
John Kent
 
Dennis Cote

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-13 11:56:46 PM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

David Dean [CodeGear] wrote:
Quote
We're working on fixing them for the next version.
That is the problem. They need to be fixed in the current version. Now,
not at some unspecified future date.
Quote
Those that are
important enough and represent low risk have been (and are being)
backported for the current product.

So none of the bugs reported at "The Top Ten Niggling, Irritating, and
Downright Bad IDE Bugs List"
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges/archive/2006/06/27/25626.aspx were
important enough to be fixed in BDS 2006.
Quote
The compiler has many standards compliance issues. Many haven't been
addressed *yet*. AIUI, there is less risk in addressing these later in
the development cycle.

There is also a very real risk that they will not be addressed at all
because at that point you will claim it is too close to product launch
and there won't be enough time for thorough testing. So they will end up
being delayed right past the release of the next version. These issues
should be implemented, tested, and released incrementally, and as early
as possible.
Quote

That isn't exactly a rumor.
If CodeGear hasn't made an official announcement it is just a rumor,
perhaps from a good source, but still a rumor.
Quote

How small of a shop do you think we are? The C++ team isn't working
on the PHP product. It hasn't been the slightest distraction.

Resources are limited no matter how big your shop is. If you weren't
paying for PHP IDE developers you would have more money for additional
C++ bug fixers and testers. Its as simple as that.
Quote

Would you rather they not get fixed?

No, I would rather the fixes got released.
Dennis Cote
 
David Dean [CodeGear]

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-14 12:54:28 AM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

In article <45d1dfac$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Dennis Cote < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
So none of the bugs reported at "The Top Ten Niggling, Irritating, and
Downright Bad IDE Bugs List"
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges/archive/2006/06/27/25626.aspx were
important enough to be fixed in BDS 2006.
Nick would be the person to ask about that list. I can't say where or
when any of those issues will be addressed.
Quote
There is also a very real risk that they will not be addressed at all
because at that point you will claim it is too close to product launch
and there won't be enough time for thorough testing.
Some won't be, but not for the reason you claim. If I'm told that a
fix is too risky to implement for the next release at this stage, it's
going to be placed at the top of my list for top priority items in the
following release. I *will* be pestering R&D at the beginning of the
next cycle on some very specific items.
Quote
>How small of a shop do you think we are? The C++ team isn't working
 >on the PHP product. It hasn't been the slightest distraction.
Resources are limited no matter how big your shop is. If you weren't
paying for PHP IDE developers you would have more money for additional
C++ bug fixers and testers. Its as simple as that.
That may be true, but hiring more engineers isn't a magic bullet. It
takes time to get them up to speed and even if they had been hired at
the same time as I was, many of the same risks, technical issues, and
other impediments would still be limiting us. More engineers would be
nice, and would be, IMO, a great investment.
My point still stands that the PHP product hasn't impacted the C++
teams ability to work. None of us are spending time working on anything
but what we've always worked on. Our team is the same size as it was
before anyone ever proposed a CodeGear PHP product.
Quote
>Would you rather they not get fixed?
No, I would rather the fixes got released.
Which is what we're trying to do.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 
David Dean [CodeGear]

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-14 12:55:39 AM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Leo Siefert < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>Add to the confusion Update 2 (which is required). Hotfix 2 shouldn't
 >be required, and wasn't any of the many times I installed it. Is it
 >possible that you were asked to install update 2 and not hotfix 2?
Maybe next time a different naming/numbering system could help?
It's a good point. I'll try to remember to bring it up for future
planning.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 
David Dean [CodeGear]

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-14 12:59:26 AM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
vavan < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
sorry, I don't understand how could I clarify it since english isn't
my native :(
You're doing alright.
Quote
you just try to use Find declaration in any real project regularly and
you'll hit it very soon. I just tried it again couple of minutes ago
on one of methods and it jumped to line #343 of scopeguard.h - totally
unrelated place - and file looks like it is modified again
This, coupled with your earlier post should be enough. I believe that
I now understand what you mean enough that I will be sure that I've
found the right problem once I manage to reproduce it.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 
Duane Hebert

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-14 01:02:40 AM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

Quote
The compiler has many standards compliance issues. Many haven't been
addressed *yet*. AIUI, there is less risk in addressing these later in
the development cycle. Would you prefer we take larger risks and have to
delay the product?
Are you asking if I'd prefer that you delay releasing a new product
that you will want to sell me, in order to fix the one(s) that I've already
purchased?
Is this a rhetorical question?
 
Dennis Jones

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-14 01:03:41 AM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

I'm sure you realize that we haven't been devoting all of our time to
hotfixes and that we are mainly focussed on future products.

Argh!
- Dennis
 
Dennis Cote

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-14 01:47:19 AM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

Duane Hebert wrote:
Quote

Are you asking if I'd prefer that you delay releasing a new product
that you will want to sell me, in order to fix the one(s) that I've already
purchased?

Is this a rhetorical question?

Duane,
Very well put. I don't understand why they can't get their heads wrapped
around that idea. It seems pretty simple to me.
Dennis Cote
 
David Dean [CodeGear]

CBuilder Developer

2007-02-14 02:31:38 AM

Re:Re: BDS2006HotFixRollup2.exe

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Are you asking if I'd prefer that you delay releasing a new product
that you will want to sell me, in order to fix the one(s) that I've already
purchased?
No I'm asking which trade off is better: n updates with x fixes or 1
update with n*x fixes?
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>