3 ms·

From good source here: You don't actually jump through hoops. All you get to do is submit the bug, which gets logged in the bucket of thousands of other bugs.

From good source here: You don't actually jump through hoops. All you get to do is submit the bug, which gets logged in the bucket of thousands of other bugs. Then the PMs will gather for bug triage for the next release, which have to compete with the next shiny project features. Nobody wants to fix bugs that only one developer has. It's just not worth it. This bug has existed for years, and it is likely you could modify your code to generate different byte code. So the bug likely won't be fixed for a while. I love .NET. I am just describing the reality of the process of bug fixing. Also, if you fix it, who knows what else will regress. That also imposes a bias towards not fixing these kinds of bugs.

acdha 12y ago
> Nobody wants to fix bugs that only one developer has. It's just not worth it. … Also, if you fix it, who knows what else will regress. That also imposes a bias towards not fixing these kinds of bugs. This is an interesting cognitive hazard: it's relatively easy to measure the cost of paying a developer to fix a bug and possible to estimate the cost of getting it wrong but there's no way to measure the cost to everyone who encountered it but never did the work to reduce it to a testcase and file a bug report. Worse, it's very hard to measure the cost of people who choose to use something else. Repeat that cycle a few times and a fairly high percentage of the people you will hear from are in the “never change anything less than critical” camp.
- hyperliner 12y ago
  ... Or also never fix anything that we won't be able to sell and make money from (this is, the next shiny thing, whatever it happens to be at the time). The cognitive hazard is a good observation. But I think the most important one is the imbalance of interest, which is where open source shines: MS gets zero value from fixing this bug and a lot of value from adding new features, but for this one developer this bug could have been the most important issue on the road to his company's "value" (their own product's ship date).
  - acdha 12y ago
    I wonder whether we'll see more of a hybrid model where companies either use something like Red Hat's RHEL / Fedora level of support split or a time-delayed OSS release so they can have some period of proprietary advantage while allowing customers access and allowing some chance for major outside contributions or tangents. Arguably Apple is doing something not entirely unlike that but they haven't hit the right balance yet.

acdha 12y ago

> Nobody wants to fix bugs that only one developer has. It's just not worth it. … Also, if you fix it, who knows what else will regress. That also imposes a bias towards not fixing these kinds of bugs. This is an interesting cognitive hazard: it's relatively easy to measure the cost of paying a developer to fix a bug and possible to estimate the cost of getting it wrong but there's no way to measure the cost to everyone who encountered it but never did the work to reduce it to a testcase and file a bug report. Worse, it's very hard to measure the cost of people who choose to use something else. Repeat that cycle a few times and a fairly high percentage of the people you will hear from are in the “never change anything less than critical” camp.

hyperliner 12y ago
... Or also never fix anything that we won't be able to sell and make money from (this is, the next shiny thing, whatever it happens to be at the time). The cognitive hazard is a good observation. But I think the most important one is the imbalance of interest, which is where open source shines: MS gets zero value from fixing this bug and a lot of value from adding new features, but for this one developer this bug could have been the most important issue on the road to his company's "value" (their own product's ship date).
- acdha 12y ago
  I wonder whether we'll see more of a hybrid model where companies either use something like Red Hat's RHEL / Fedora level of support split or a time-delayed OSS release so they can have some period of proprietary advantage while allowing customers access and allowing some chance for major outside contributions or tangents. Arguably Apple is doing something not entirely unlike that but they haven't hit the right balance yet.