Comments on: Delphi/C++ Team, Quality Central and Bug Prioritization http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041 CodeGear QA Manager for RAD Studio products Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:58:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: gerard vanderveken http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-66 gerard vanderveken Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:01:30 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-66 I agree, that there are a lot of bugs in QC, that are waiting for ages. It's time to get the most annoying fixed. The easy to confuse XML mapper and the lack of good documentation for the Internet stuff like WebSnap and IntraWeb comes to my mind. It is a pitty that these things have such a steep learning curve. The new documentation system itself (as opposed to the .hlp files) is very slow to use and find most of the time no answers. I regulary look things up with Delphi 6 Help. The new help system destroys all productivity gains of the new Delphi 2007 IDE. I agree, that there are a lot of bugs in QC, that are waiting for ages. It’s time to get the most annoying fixed. The easy to confuse XML mapper and the lack of good documentation for the Internet stuff like WebSnap and IntraWeb comes to my mind. It is a pitty that these things have such a steep learning curve. The new documentation system itself (as opposed to the .hlp files) is very slow to use and find most of the time no answers. I regulary look things up with Delphi 6 Help. The new help system destroys all productivity gains of the new Delphi 2007 IDE.

]]> By: Chris Pattinson http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-65 Chris Pattinson Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:45:56 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-65 Our use of Quality Central is defined here: <br> <br>(<a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://dn.codegear.com/article/33888">http://dn.codegear.com/article/33888</a>) <br> <br>QualityCentral (QC) provides a community process for resolving, clarifying, and tracking quality issues regarding CodeGear's products and services. CodeGear Developer Network (CDN) members can create bug reports and feature requests, view other members' reports, and comment and vote on the reports most important to them. CodeGear personnel also participate in QualityCentral, providing a permanent link between CodeGear customers and the teams who produce CodeGear's products. <br> <br>It's not the main bug repository the team uses, but we refer to it in several ways. <br> <br>However, that doesn't address the problem that the QC 'backlog' has been growing, and as mentioned by others - it's not accurate. Several reports exist on already fixed issues, and some serious issues that really should be promoted haven't yet. <br> <br>A longer term solution will be merging the two database in some fashion. <br> Our use of Quality Central is defined here:

(http://dn.codegear.com/article/33888)

QualityCentral (QC) provides a community process for resolving, clarifying, and tracking quality issues regarding CodeGear’s products and services. CodeGear Developer Network (CDN) members can create bug reports and feature requests, view other members’ reports, and comment and vote on the reports most important to them. CodeGear personnel also participate in QualityCentral, providing a permanent link between CodeGear customers and the teams who produce CodeGear’s products.

It’s not the main bug repository the team uses, but we refer to it in several ways.

However, that doesn’t address the problem that the QC ‘backlog’ has been growing, and as mentioned by others - it’s not accurate. Several reports exist on already fixed issues, and some serious issues that really should be promoted haven’t yet.

A longer term solution will be merging the two database in some fashion.

]]> By: Uwe Schuster http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-64 Uwe Schuster Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:07:20 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-64 You really should give QC more attention. <br> <br>Fortunately 2000 reports in "Reported" state doesn't mean 2000 more bugs. <br>D2007 Update #1 fixed for example some of my reports, but they are still in the state "Reported". Furthermore if you don't fix a bug it gets reported multiple times. You really should give QC more attention.

Fortunately 2000 reports in "Reported" state doesn’t mean 2000 more bugs.

D2007 Update #1 fixed for example some of my reports, but they are still in the state "Reported". Furthermore if you don’t fix a bug it gets reported multiple times.

]]> By: Registered User http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-63 Registered User Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:28:10 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-63 >I found out we had over *two thousand* QC reports in a 'reported' state <br> <br>huh? Hadnt u find out that?? <br>ARE U SURE?? <br>seems u just ignored those report.. <br> >I found out we had over *two thousand* QC reports in a ‘reported’ state

huh? Hadnt u find out that??

ARE U SURE??

seems u just ignored those report..

]]> By: Chris Bruner http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-62 Chris Bruner Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:49:28 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-62 In my opinion QC is a total mess. I'm used to using bugzilla with open source projects, which will. <br>1. allow you to enter bugs easily. <br>2. allow you to search bugs easily. <br>3. allow you to receive emails on individual bugs. <br>4. allow others to see the bugs you enter so that they can add their ideas or similar experiences to. <br>5. Allow more then one file to be uploaded. <br>6. The sysop can direct bugs of a particular type to one person. <br> <br>CG <br>1. Has two different types of clients, which allow different types of things. (emailing?) <br>2. Can search but can't search for a particular string in all bugs. Search is much to directed. <br>3. Finally figured out how to turn on my email from QC. But I never get emails about my own bugs, yet if I check manually people have replied to them. This is STUPID. <br>4. Cannot see other field testers bugs. <br>5. Upload a file, the original one is lost. <br> <br>I think if you spend 2 days putting bugzilla on your site, and another 2 days writing conversion code, you would have a much better system to work from. <br> <br> In my opinion QC is a total mess. I’m used to using bugzilla with open source projects, which will.

1. allow you to enter bugs easily.

2. allow you to search bugs easily.

3. allow you to receive emails on individual bugs.

4. allow others to see the bugs you enter so that they can add their ideas or similar experiences to.

5. Allow more then one file to be uploaded.

6. The sysop can direct bugs of a particular type to one person.

CG

1. Has two different types of clients, which allow different types of things. (emailing?)

2. Can search but can’t search for a particular string in all bugs. Search is much to directed.

3. Finally figured out how to turn on my email from QC. But I never get emails about my own bugs, yet if I check manually people have replied to them. This is STUPID.

4. Cannot see other field testers bugs.

5. Upload a file, the original one is lost.

I think if you spend 2 days putting bugzilla on your site, and another 2 days writing conversion code, you would have a much better system to work from.

]]> By: Eric Fortier http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-61 Eric Fortier Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:24:48 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-61 Great post Chris! <br> <br>It's nice to know that QC is getting some attention. It did feel like whatever we reported was simply not getting noticed. There's also a large quantity of things reported long ago that have still not been looked at. <br> <br>Scheduling a "delphi hour" type chat with the people on the Field Test might be a good idea. <br> <br> <br>> Continue to focus on bugfixing first. <br> <br>Crashes, memory leaks and basic functionality failures, sure, but there comes a time where you product must evolve, even with its flaws, or it will stagnate and you will loose users. <br> Great post Chris!

It’s nice to know that QC is getting some attention. It did feel like whatever we reported was simply not getting noticed. There’s also a large quantity of things reported long ago that have still not been looked at.

Scheduling a "delphi hour" type chat with the people on the Field Test might be a good idea.

> Continue to focus on bugfixing first.

Crashes, memory leaks and basic functionality failures, sure, but there comes a time where you product must evolve, even with its flaws, or it will stagnate and you will loose users.

]]> By: Robert Holler http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-30 Robert Holler Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:07:27 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-30 Continue to focus on bugfixing first. Delphi 2007 and the recent Update 1 gives me hope that you are on the right way. Nobody needs a feature ritch application that is unusabe because of its pure quality. Continue to focus on bugfixing first. Delphi 2007 and the recent Update 1 gives me hope that you are on the right way. Nobody needs a feature ritch application that is unusabe because of its pure quality.

]]> By: Shawn Oster http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36041#comment-60 Shawn Oster Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:17:00 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/chrispattinson/2007/06/14/36000/#comment-60 I have to say that, after using QC for various things, that it's time to take a hard look at it and think about perhaps moving to something more robust or open. Every time I have to fire up the QC client I cringe and the web front-end seems like it's always a half step ahead or behind the client. <br> <br>After having used a ton of bug reporting and tracking tools I've honestly found Trac to be right up there. It seems to have all the features you'd need with the right type of information and best of all you don't have to maintain it. I use it both at my "day job" managing rather complex commerical pieces of software as well as my "night job", that being consulting and web dev. <br> <br>It works great with subversion, has good reporting tools and a nice, clean, easy to use interface. I'm sure CodeGear would like to continue using what they have but it might be time for CG to bite the bullet and realize there are now better products out there and it would be easier to use on of those instead of half-maintaining an in-house custom system. <br> <br>Hopefully I've planted at least a wee seed on using Trac :) I have to say that, after using QC for various things, that it’s time to take a hard look at it and think about perhaps moving to something more robust or open. Every time I have to fire up the QC client I cringe and the web front-end seems like it’s always a half step ahead or behind the client.

After having used a ton of bug reporting and tracking tools I’ve honestly found Trac to be right up there. It seems to have all the features you’d need with the right type of information and best of all you don’t have to maintain it. I use it both at my "day job" managing rather complex commerical pieces of software as well as my "night job", that being consulting and web dev.

It works great with subversion, has good reporting tools and a nice, clean, easy to use interface. I’m sure CodeGear would like to continue using what they have but it might be time for CG to bite the bullet and realize there are now better products out there and it would be easier to use on of those instead of half-maintaining an in-house custom system.

Hopefully I’ve planted at least a wee seed on using Trac :)

]]>