On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:32:42 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Often easier said than done. Also, there are times when the version
> number given is wrong.
> Even if you just shove those old and fixed bug reports aside, you can
> loose time just to elliminate those.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for GPL'ed code or for many commercial 
packages.  Yes, some closed-source products do timebomb their betas, but 
at the same time, having watched commercial products be supported (and 
supported them myself) when the latest support pack is required before 
getting support.

Maybe require two separate reports of a bug before anyone works on it?  
The community is big enough that if someone's having a problem, they 
typically will post a sample and see if someone can help them - and if a 
second person tries and finds the same thing, that sort of confirmation 
can help reduce the chances of spinning cycles on something that isn't a 
valid bug report.

Similarly, when someone reports a problem, if there's a code sample, it's 
easy enough to verify with the proper version, and if it's not 
reproducible, that'll also tell you that you're getting wrong output.

There'll always be people who will work around it - a time bomb really 
doesn't prevent people from reporting the version incorrectly either; if 
they're determined to get help, they'll fake the info necessary to get 
someone to look into it.  I've seen that plenty of times as well - 
unsupported configurations and unsupported combinations of products, and 
the reporter will invariably either lie about what they've got or omit 
the things they think aren't relevant (or more likely, the things that 
would make it an unsupported installation).

Jim

Post a reply to this message