>> And what motivation/reason (and most important cost factor) would they
have for doing a formal beta for SP3?<<
Simple answer: the process used for SP2 obviously did not work <g>. What more do I need to say?
I think Microsoft miscalculated the impact of the three CTPs and one beta. In the past they had
private and public betas and got the feedback they needed. I believe they may have thought being
transparent and opening the CTPs and beta to all developers would provide them even more solid
feedback. In the process they took bug reports in a completely new way. It was set up in Connect,
but under the Visual Studio team. And frankly Connect sucks from a developer perspective because
there is no means of feedback for a VFP report. The VS team sent the bug reports to the VFP team and
closed them in a way the VFP bug reporter would not get feedback on the status. A seriously broken
process.
Rick
White Light Computing, Inc.
www.whitelightcomputing.com
www.swfox.net
www.rickschummer.com
-----Original Message-----
From: profoxtech-bounces At leafe DOT com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of MB Software
Solutions
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 06:31 PM
To: profoxtech At leafe DOT com
Subject: Re: Sedna Released ("with this the last Microsoft release ofVisualFoxPro")
Rick Schummer wrote:
> <snipped>
> because Microsoft did not hold a formal beta, and those
> who reported issues never received any feedback that the issues were being looked at and fixed if
> appropriate. This combination turned a lot of people off, and now we have to live with the
results,
> which stinks.
>
And what motivation/reason (and most important cost factor) would they
have for doing a formal beta for SP3? As Bernhard Bout's comment said,
it looks as though they just couldn't care less.
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
http://fabmate.com
"Work smarter, not harder, with MBSS custom software solutions!"
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2008 Rick Schummer |
