× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



To me it is fairly clear on Fix vs Enhancement.

If something is designed to do X and it does X then it is good.

Now if it does X+ or X- in some cases then it is broken and is in need of a fix. That is, it is broken as it does not meet the original design in all cases. For IBM this would require a fixing PTF.

If it determined after 'a time' that the design no longer meats the requirements then that is a design change rather than a fix. As such any coding is done as an enhancement, not a fix. This would still be delivered as a PTF but it would be an enhancing PTF not a fix

It shouldn't really matter why the design needs to change, unless the original design was incomplete and did not meet the needs /at the time of design/. Beyond that case any changes are enhancements and fall into that bucket.

From my point of view then adding additional ciphers to i 7.1 does constitute a design change. The ciphers in there still do exactly what they were designed to do and coded to do. Since that time things have changed (additional compute power, theoretical vulnerabilities have been described, etc) and thus the design needs updating. Updating the design is therefore an enhancement, not a fix.

That's the way I see it at least.

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.

On 7/12/2017 4:54 PM, John Yeung wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:52 AM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not trying to say that the instant they declare "Fix only" support that
absolutely zero enhancements would ever be added. I am saying that adding
these ciphers DOES constitute an enhancement, not a break-fix. As such IBM
can say No to adding them. Because it potentially affects a large group
though if it was easy I expect they would do it.

Your tone is conciliatory here, and I appreciate that. But the fact
remains that you're not budging on the notion that reasonable people
can differ on what constitutes a "fix".

The fact that you think IBM would do it if it were easy raises the
question: Why then is it so important whether it's called a "fix"?
Doesn't it (and shouldn't it) really come down to a cost-benefit
analysis? If IBM (or anyone else) feels that it's too much effort for
too little gain, why does it matter which bucket it's in? Why do we
need two buckets in the first place?

Jeff Atwood does a decent job articulating what I'm trying to say:

<https://blog.codinghorror.com/thats-not-a-bug-its-a-feature-request/>

Predictably, a lot of the comments are like your responses to me. They
will probably never understand what the hell Atwood is talking about,
just as I am beginning to feel you will never understand what I am
trying to say.

But there are also a lot of comments that agree with Atwood. I guess
I'll just have to take comfort in that.

John Y.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.