Re: Another IDS Feature Request
"Donny" <thisisbackwards_PSynnoD@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:drcr7h$nqq$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk... > In response to all this chatter about new features: How about the development > team actually get on and fix all the outstanding (customer raised) bugs? > > As a developer myself I understand that green-field development is always more > interesting than bug fixing, but surely satisfying current customers should be a > priority over adding "wouldn't it be nice" features to try and entice new > customers to a (supposedly dying) product. > > To have no movement on 12 bugs in almost two years is extremely frustrating! > > Regards, > Donny > > (Still waiting for: 164051, 164052, 164053, 165994, 165995, 166894, 168482, > 168483, 171075, 171076, 171080, 171079.) Donny, Here's the current status of these entries 164051 - is a feature request for some changes. A FEA rel level has been opened. No open case exists on the PTS entry 164052 - opened as a feature request 164053 - opened as a feature request 165994 - fixed in 9.4UC6 and 10.00UC1 165995 - Declared to be a feature request - is open in a futureRel - has no associated customer case 166894 - Declared to be a feature request - is open in a futureRel - has no associated customer case 168482 - fixed in 9.4UC6 and 10.00UC1 168483 - closed as Could Not Reproduce. no reproduction provided, request for the repro was made but not provided - has no associated customer case 171075 - Declared to be a feature request - is open in a futureRel - has no associated customer case - request was made for further information but not provided 171076 - Declared to be a feature request - is open in a futureRel - has no associated customer case 171080 - Currently scheduled to be fixed in 10.00UC5 171079 - Currently scheduled to be fixed in 10.00UC5 - no associated customer case When a customer opens a case, they have the option to attach the case to any PTS entries which are generated as part of that case. The customer case attachment is the signal to R&D that a customer is waiting for the fix and is important in determing the order in which PTS entries are dealt with. Also, that is a critical means to ensure that the customer gets any update to the PTS entry - such as a request for a reproduction or the fact that the PTS entry is being declared to be a feature in that it is either changing the existing behaviour or extending existing limitations. Just because a PTS entry is not opened as a feature request does not mean that the PTS entry does not end up as being declared to be a feature request. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that you are a partner. The reason is that all of these entries are VII or VTI issues which is a bit of a specialized area. If that is the case, then you really should have an IBM contact to help ensure the proper priority on these problems. We don't want to be causing any of our partners grief. I don't know, but I suspect that there has been a breakdown in communication somewhere. During the product planning meetings, I don't recall any issues being raised for VII or VTI.
Madison Pruet wrote: > I don't know for sure, but I suspect that you are a partner. The reason is > that all of these entries are VII or VTI issues which is a bit of a > specialized area. If that is the case, then you really should have an IBM > contact to help ensure the proper priority on these problems. We don't want > to be causing any of our partners grief. > > I don't know, but I suspect that there has been a breakdown in communication > somewhere. During the product planning meetings, I don't recall any issues > being raised for VII or VTI. > Not a breakdown in communication, rather complete lack of it. I've been lead-developer on a blade project for a couple of years and I've never had any contact with our IBM parter contact. In fact I've just asked the boss and I've never even heard the name of this guy. We've certainly never been asked for further information or details on how to reproduce a problem. Also, it's interesting how out-and-out bugs are retitled "feature requests". For example, mi_qual_funcname() returning NULL within am_scancost (164051) is a bug and nothing else. So. Are you saying that in the absence of a customer to raise a case, our IBM Partner Contact can get these prioritised instead? Donny
"Donny" <thisisbackwards_PSynnoD@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:drkunl$j6s$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk... > > Not a breakdown in communication, rather complete lack of it. I've been > lead-developer on a blade project for a couple of years and I've never had any > contact with our IBM parter contact. In fact I've just asked the boss and I've > never even heard the name of this guy. We've certainly never been asked for > further information or details on how to reproduce a problem. > > > So. Are you saying that in the absence of a customer to raise a case, our IBM > Partner Contact can get these prioritised instead? The IBM partner can have a significant impact on how things get prioritized. > > Donny