Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

Re: Cheeky Delphi guys


2006-05-02 10:55:38 PM
cppbuilder33
David Dean < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
In article <445764ae$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Reports against beta versions should be as public
>as beta versions should be. Note the second "should".
>Reports against internal versions weren't discussed,
>AFAICT, since it's unlikely that they will be reported
>by a user.

It is a fact that beta versions are not public, and AIUI, that those
who participate are not allowed to discuss them in public, or even admit
that they got to use a beta version. If this fact changes, then I agree
that these could become public.
So what? The issue at hand was your question
"Should...?", not "Is...?", so I don't see how
the current state of affairs matters for my
answer how it should be.
Quote
>If the person reporting it thinks so, why not?
>Obviously, the person who reported this bug had no
>problem sharing it.

If the person who reported it check the box to make it private, or
only agrees to share it with Borland on the condition that the report
remain private, they obviously do have a problem sharing it.
Again: So what? Even more obviously, the person
who had reported this bug did not have a problem.
Quote
>I don't know what the AIR is, but if I guess right,
>it's a report that the app sends when it crashs. By
>al means, yes, make this public.

Even if this report includes a call stack and a memory dump? A memory
dump could potentially contain private information like a user's tax ID,
birth date, password, etc.
I, as a Borland user, would not be interested in
call stacks, memory dumps etc. I'd be interested
in "This is a duplicate of bug #... Closed." and
the like. This could very well be public.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
David Dean < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Even if this report includes a call stack and a memory dump?
For the record, I checked one of the AIRs that I submitted, and there
is no memory dump. A modules list and a call stack are all that are
included.
--
-David
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

In article <445772ef$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>If the person who reported it check the box to make it private, or
>only agrees to share it with Borland on the condition that the report
>remain private, they obviously do have a problem sharing it.

Again: So what?
So what?!? If a person asks Borland not to share the info in a
report, their wishes should not be honored?
Quote
Even more obviously, the person
who had reported this bug did not have a problem.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
--
-David
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

John Kaster (Borland) wrote:
Quote
So, I'm still at a loss to figure out exactly what it is that you want
John -
Not trying to imply that this is what Alex wants, but I would like to
see a way for the author of an AIR report to make the report public.
For quite some time I had been doctoring up some of my AIRs after
testing them for reproducibility so that they became "full" bug
reports. I was then somewhat surprised to find that no one else could
see them.
Maybe if the user goes back in and edits the report later and certain
requirements are met - new title, steps provided, etc. - there could
be a "make public" option.
- Leo
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

David Dean < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
In article <445772ef$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>>If the person who reported it check the box to make it private, or
>>only agrees to share it with Borland on the condition that the report
>>remain private, they obviously do have a problem sharing it.
>
>Again: So what?

So what?!? If a person asks Borland not to share the info in a
report, their wishes should not be honored?
You snipped too much context. See my paragraph
above yours.
This is not the case here. The person sharing the
info obviously did not wish to keep it private.
From what I read it seems Dennis himself entered
the report. He shared it. So your complaint does
not apply in this case.
Quote
>Even more obviously, the person
>who had reported this bug did not have a problem.

I'm not sure what you mean here.
Yeah, I saw that.
I also saw that you did not provide any arguments
against my other points. I understand this as you
agreeing with me on those points.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
This is not the case here. The person sharing the
info obviously did not wish to keep it private.
From what I read it seems Dennis himself entered
the report. He shared it. So your complaint does
not apply in this case.
That doesn't apply to the point you were making because the report
was against a beta.
I see nothing wrong with a person who makes a private report, making
that report public at a later date, but it doesn't make sense for anyone
else to make that report public other than the the person who made it.
--
-David
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

David Dean < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>This is not the case here. The person sharing the
>info obviously did not wish to keep it private.
>From what I read it seems Dennis himself entered
>the report. He shared it. So your complaint does
>not apply in this case.

That doesn't apply to the point you were making because the report
was against a beta.
It did, however, apply to the point you were making,
"if the person who reported it check the box to make
it private, or only agrees to share it with Borland
on the condition that the report remain private, they
obviously do have a problem sharing it". And that's
what I applied it to.
Quote
I see nothing wrong with a person who makes a private report, making
that report public at a later date, but it doesn't make sense for anyone
else to make that report public other than the the person who made it.
Except that, if the person didn't even know it was
private (as was the case here), this person might
share the bug without making it public beforehand.
Understandably, IMHO.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

In article <445b55cc$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Except that, if the person didn't even know it was
private (as was the case here)
In the case here, there is no excuse (IMO) for the poster not knowing
that the report was going to be private.
--
-David
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

Leo Siefert wrote:
Quote
I would like to
see a way for the author of an AIR report to make the report public.
Good suggestion. Please put it in QC.
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it's not here, it's not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

David Erbas-White wrote:
Quote
I guess the best way for me to describe it is that it appears (to me)
that Borland currently tends to make things in QC private unless it's
ABSOLUTELY clear that something is public, and I'd prefer that things
be public unless it's ABSOLUTELY clear that it is private.
Thanks for this explanation. The truth is actually the opposite of your
supposition. Most reports in QC are public, not private, and it was
always primarily intended as a public tracking system.
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it's not here, it's not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

AN option that I see as possibility is to use Eclipse C++ and add on top
of it some of the CBX features. Also you can provide native code version
of this product to some platforms by building it with GCJ just like
Fedora/Redhat did in Fedora 4 and 5.
Doychin
John Kaster (Borland) wrote:
Quote
Duane Hebert wrote:

>John, I think you're the first Borlander that I've heard say
>that CBX is actually dead.

"DevCo" holds out hope to do something with it, but no development is
planned on it by Borland. There is still a tremendous market for CBX
for ANSI C++ developers, particularly with the latest version. Right
when it was getting really good is when the plug was pulled on
development of it.

IMO, if DevCo is focused on developers, we must provide a world-class
answer for ANSI C++ development as well, and CBX could easily have been
that answer.

 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

David Dean < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
In article <445b55cc$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Except that, if the person didn't even know it was
>private (as was the case here)

In the case here, there is no excuse (IMO) for the poster not knowing
that the report was going to be private.
So according to logic, from your line of arguments
follows that, had Dennis marked the bug "public"
first, it would have been OK? Sorry, I cannot follow
your reasoning here.
Also, consider the opinions I brought into this
discussion (news:445764ae$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ).
None of all your arguments provided any insight why
these would be wrong, yet I find myself entangled
in a discussion about Dennis' publication in which
you seem to have lost sight of all the lose ends.
That's tedious.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

Doychin Bondzhev wrote:
Quote
AN option that I see as possibility is to use Eclipse C++ and add on
top of it some of the CBX features.
Right. After Peloton (JBuilder on Eclipse) is out, we can look at
repeating what we did for CBX on Primetime, which followed after
JBuilder on Primetime.
Quote
Also you can provide native code
version of this product to some platforms by building it with GCJ
just like Fedora/Redhat did in Fedora 4 and 5.
Thanks for the suggestion.
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it's not here, it's not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
So according to logic, from your line of arguments
follows that, had Dennis marked the bug "public"
first, it would have been OK? Sorry, I cannot follow
your reasoning here.
No, his choice doesn't apply here at all. My logic is that Dennis
should have known that a report lodged against a beta version would not
be for public consumption, and it should not have been discussed in
public.
--
-David
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
 

Re:Re: Cheeky Delphi guys

John Kaster (Borland) wrote:
Quote
Good suggestion. Please put it in QC.
Filed QC 29034.
- Leo