Just incase you haven’t read the blog already, take a quick read before seeing what I have to say about it.
In Feedback users can specify which 5 cases are most important to them, be they bugs or feature requests. Doing so assigns points to the case with the user’s #1 case getting the most points and #5 getting the least.
Nope, customers get this feature, users get no points unless they have paid for a product in the last 12 months. So this is misleading. So if a user is still evaluating the product, helping you bug test it, they get no points and no input into the priority of their bugs. Nice.
The User Favorites list in Feedback shows the top 100 cases with the greatest number of points.
Nope, we only get to see 20 which frankly is pretty pointless at this time when 17-18 of the top 20 are 4-12 years old, why we don’t get to see everything is anyone’s guess, maybe you don’t want to let users know what a huge list there is? We sure remember what happened when you tried to remove the little information we are allowed to see.
Many (but not all) of the open bug reports in Feedback only impact a small number of users (and many just a single user)
Maybe people are fed up spending (wasting?) time reporting bugs. Maybe if we could actually browse the complete list and we weren’t only given a choice of 5 to pick from we could let you how many are actually important.
It’s important to note that development tools will always have far more open bug reports than most other software. Why is this?
Far more open bugs? Don’t you mean far more bugs? “open bugs” is directly related to the number of people finding bugs which is related to software reach, staff on hand to squash the bugs and the practices and policies or lack there of in terms of code quality and bug checking during development. Its also related to how quickly you need to get things out the door, rapid releases mean that checks aren’t always as thorough as they could or should be.
Reviewing Microsoft’s bug base for cases regarding Visual Studio is a good comparison. In terms of ratios (open vs. closed cases), we are similar but with a team and budget several orders of magnitude smaller.
I’m not sure that is a good comparison or something you want to be proud of. Saying that you have a similar ratio of bugs vs a piece of software that has an order of magnitude more users stressing it as well a vast difference in complexity and features. I know there are bugs in Xojo at the moment that haven’t been reported due to sheer frustration by users that have given up on reporting them. You won’t even have any metrics for those users that are turned away from your product by bugs they find that are being overlooked in feedback due to there being a workaround in there, they might not have even found the workaround yet and have been turned away from your product. I see what you’re trying to do here, justify the current level of bugs by comparing Xojo against VS but I’m not sure you can compare Xojo with VS.
Do you have any data on the bug levels and which direction they are going? While you keep saying that you squash a lot of bugs and quoting 161 from the 2020r1 release I’m yet to be convinced that you’re actually reducing the number of bugs overall. If 130 were introduced and fixed in the previous release, 10 were “fixed” due to a change in tech from web1 to web2 then only 20 long term bugs were fixed in around 8 months. Do I need to look at how many bugs were actually added in that 8 months? We then look at the next dot release and see that 44 bugs were fixed from 2020r1 around 38 of which were introduced in 2020r1 so you only actually fixed 6 outstanding bugs in a month, do I need to look at how many other bugs were reported in that month? This would seem to me that you aren’t tackling enough bugs and your product will (has?) eventually get overrun with bugs.
You also seem to have omitted the part where devs pick what they feel like from the current list of bugs, I’m sure people would be interested in how that fits in with the whole process.
As we develop much of Xojo in Xojo, we run into bugs ourselves and fortunately are in the unique position to fix them at that point.
Yes, we notice this quite often. A bug we put in is ignored for years until someone at Xojo comes up against it, puts in a duplicate case then instantly fixes it. We especially love having our time wasted documenting the bug in the first place, providing a demo project to replicate it, giving any feedback to reproduce it and having to figure out the workaround only for all that to be literally ignored when the bug is “discovered” later by an engineer/owner. I couldn’t think of anything much more insulting to your users. The excuse of “the engineer is in the area of the code so its easier to fix” doesn’t wash with us either, just the fact that they were in the area of the code in the first place and didn’t have the outstanding bug on their radar shows us that this doesn’t happen.
Xojo Pro Plus users will be given priority.
This isn’t what I hear from Pro Plus users.
Given that the source code to Xojo is far larger than that of the space shuttle, the cost of making it bug-free would also be higher.
This is complete and utter nonsense. The reason that the cost was so high was exactly because lives were on the line and the costs involved had a line of code been wrong were astronomical. So much more time and effort was put into making sure things ran smoothly than would ever be needed to ensure than Xojo runs smoothly.
Only 8 of the top 50 are bugs, the first of which doesn’t even make the top 10
How many of the top 100 are bugs? We can’t see that data even though you seem to think we can. Are you cherry picking data to match your narrative, it seems odd that you go from a 100 reference down to a 50.
We fix hundreds of bugs every year.
But how many do you introduce every year?
The whole point of Feedback is to guide us in finding a way to prioritize and balance everyones’ needs and desires.
For it to all boil down to an engineer randomly picking what they feel like doing that day?
Overall, a nice bit of attempted PR and customer outreach, its just a shame so much of it is wrong or misleading.