Re: 2 more bugs in 2.0a!

Vic Zamora <dbflip@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> I do not know you, Paul, but I think you come on too strong to say "the
> development team refuses to fix".  They are not refusing - they will try
> to fix them.

That's not how I interpreted that message. It looked to me like the guy was
stating on behalf of the development team that they (paraphrasing) know about
the bugs and don't give a damn.

Of course, I don't know whether he is on the development team or has their
sanction to speak on their behalf, so...

> But I can't keep quiet when someone uses such unkind words.

I was responding to what appeared to be equally unkind words. Namely words to
the effect of "I/we don't give a damn about you or the bug you encountered,
data loss or no data loss."

> Yes, it needs a lot of fixing and polishing but please use gentle
> prodding and do not demean the effort of these people.

My initial gentle prodding prompted a response to the effect that "I/we don't
give a damn about you or the bug you encountered, data loss or no data loss,"
hence a subsequent, strongly worded response.

> Your list was quite exhaustive and I am sure the team appreciates the
> effort you put in evaluating their product. They will look into all of
> them as they have in the past.

These statements imply that the guy whose posting implied the development team
didn't give a damn was a) mistaken and b) not actually sanctioned to speak on
their behalf. Perhaps he needs a kindly reminder that he doesn't speak for the
development team?

> Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>> Shall I take that as meaning the development team refuses to fix or
>> even look at these bugs? Even the SHOWSTOPPERS?

Hey... actually, it seems I merely asked for clarification of his message ...

>> I find that quite objectionable. Your editor should at least be beta-
>> quality software...

and gave a subsequent "rant" conditioned on the result of that clarification.



____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

Received on Friday, 11 June 1999 06:19:24 UTC