Author: Robert Pawlak
Date: 12:56:58 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 06:17:35, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: >On August 28, 2001 at 21:37:16, Robert Pawlak wrote: > >>Victor speaks the truth here. It was extremely difficult to beta test CA 6.X, >>since many new functions were added. You test one, and then maybe a bug gets >>introduced later. Pretty soon you end up trying to verify that everything works >>with each new beta. This is extremely time consuming. >> > >My opinion is that a patch should only deal with bugs and obvious, the new >functions should go to the next release. > I agree with this also. But I think Convekta is trying to make other customers happy by adding requested features into 6.1 at no additional cost. Furthermore, subsequent builds (since the original 6.1 release) have concentrated only on fixing bugs. No new functions have been added. My opinion is also that some companies would have released 6.1 as a version 7 (indeed, I think Convekta would have been justified in doing this). But instead, they chose to release the new version as a free upgrade for owners of version 6. >>Furthermore, not every beta tester has every engine. So you have further >>narrowed the number of people that are even able to test for your problem. >> > >Is all working well for you when you use the Crafty engine that comes with CA? > Crafty is working fine for me. I use it occasionally for analysis. >>There has been a bug or two that I have experienced since the last build, but >>overall I am overjoyed with CA 6.1, and it works 100% of the time for the >>functions that I use every day. It really does a lot for comparatively little >>$$$. > >Hopefully you are not a beta tester for finding bugs then. This I think you know the answer to already (based on my previous posts and the "about" box in CA). Hopefully that last remark was not meant to be as sarcastic as it sounds. But in any case, here is your answer: I already spend a significant amount of free time testing CA (and some other programs as well). What this means is using many functions that are totally unimportant to me (or possibly not fully understood), and spending large amounts of time documenting steps and processes to reproduce those bugs that I have be able to find. All told, I probably spent at least 140 hours on this. Every single bug that I reported has been fixed. Every e-mail I sent was responded to. Now, if you are willing to pay my salary while I do this testing, and give me the means to fix anything I find, then I am more than happy to share in the responsibility for any bugs that go unfound. Bob > >Odd Gunnar Malin
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.