Re: How to make a useful bug report
- Posted by useless_ Sep 27, 2012
- 1736 views
[09:37] <iamlost> mattlewis: i doubt it [09:37] <iamlost> mattlewis: based on her PATH, she seems to have bigger issues }}} BOOM There, you disregarded my bug report. I had already run the fixed bat file and euc by then, and it completed, apparently properly. But you said i have bigger issues with the install or path.
I didn't disregard it, I just said that I doubted it (based on incomplete information at the time and a lack of understanding on how Windoze deals with percent signs). Which I did admit later on:
"doubt" is "disbelief", that is: you did not believe the fix i had. [/quote]
1) I discovered it first, so it is my fix. [/quote]
But you did not tell me of this, until this Euphorum thread. You didn't tell me on irc. If you had the fix, what did you gain by not telling me?
2) I did have a moment of disbelief when I saw your path and it didn't match what I thought. I had a second moment of disbelief when I tested it out and realized that my conception was wrong.
This is normal, facts get doubted and checked again and again when developing and debugging.
At no point did I doubt you on a personal level. If you had suddenly said I was wrong because you tested it and the fix worked so that really was the bug, I would have believed you. Ok, I would have retested it myself anyways - but that doesn't mean I didn't believe in you.
If you leave out a %, windows will predictably mangle the PATH, *how* it mangles it is irrelavant, just like how Unix treats it is irrelavant.
Sure it is. I expected the PATH to be mangled to C:\Euphoria-4.0.4\bin;%WATCOM\binw;C:\Euphoria-4.0.4\WATCOM\binnt or maybe to C:\Euphoria-4.0.4\bin;WATCOM\binw;C:\Euphoria-4.0.4\WATCOM\binnt
Since it wasn't mangled the way that I expected it to be, I got confused and started doubting things. But then I started to have doubts about that and decided to double check.
Of course, at no point did I disregard your bug, or state that I was disregarding it. That was a false assumption on your part.
You merely didn't believe it.
The sequence of events was:
1) I find the bug, believe that it's the cause of your PATH problems. 2) I see your path, the output doesn't fit what I expect, so I start having doubts. 3) Matt quickly interjects and asks what I think. 4) I then have more doubts, and do a test that shows I was originally correct.
Thanks for disregarding the fact that I pointed out only a single dev or two (as opposed to the entire dev team) will handle the ticket!
Irrelavant, others have freely jumped in on the bashing before.
That's my point: no one else should jump in.
[/quote]
True. I agree.
Then why are you on the forums and IRC channel at all?
Wow, what part did you not catch about the start of the topic i started??
I caught everything, thanks. I'm still waiting for an answer to this question.
[/quote]
I asked for a feature, Matt said i should use DLLs, i said it didn't work as shipped, i pointed out a bug, then we all got really ugly about the bugs and problems and stuff, which you keep dragging on here.
Matt, i ask permission to stop paying attention to Jim on this thread. This is really a counterproductive protocol of interaction.
useless
