Re: Re: SmartEiffel shortcomings?

Mike Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've had code accepted by the smarteiffel team. It's a PITA.

What does "a PITA" mean?

> First you post the patches to smartzilla. After a couple of weeks of
> nothing happening, you bitch about the fact that nobody has even
> looked at it. After doing that two or three times, it may - just
> may - get a response. More likely, the bug report will be closed with
> no explanation of what was wrong with the code. Then you find a bug in
> the original code, and get no - zero - nada - zip - none - credit for
> having written the code in the first place. You have to go through the
> same process as you did before.

I don't get it. You want to credit yourself for finding bugs in your own 
code? Where's the catch?

Of course we take time to answer to bug reports. We say it often enough: 
we miss time. OK, that's our problem, but you must be aware of it because 
lack of time means *delay*.

And now, instead of generalities, give me pointers. Real things. If we did 
something wrong, show the mistake instead of this empty talk.

Did we close a bug without explanation? I don't remember having ever done 
that. If I did then sorry but please show me so that I can fix that.

Maybe we, too, can learn from our mistakes.

Out of curiosity, I queried your smartzilla bugs (reporter: mwm) The 
results are:
        33 bugs, out of which
                23 (70%) are FIXED
                3 are INVALID, with an explanation
                2 are DUPLICATE which is an explanation by itself
                1 is WONTFIX, with a clear explanation
                3 are UNCONFIRMED
                1 is NEW

So, where is the problem with your bugs? The 4 (12%) not yet fixed?

Or did I miss any report?

Regards
-- 
Cyril ADRIAN -- ALPLOG 
@ PSA Peugeot Citroën, Sochaux, France 
tél. +33 (0)3 81 33 48 76 
fax +33 (0)3 81 33 16 06 
Vt Sol inter planetas, 
Ita MVSICA inter Artes Liberales 
in medio radiat 
-- Heinrich Schütz, 1640