I know I said I'd enter the RFE on Friday, but working the holiday did not turn out as uninterrupted as I had hoped. Too many people had the same idea.
I played the game this time and created an RFE. I hope that Edmund/whomever does hear the feedback given in this forum on the topic of bug vs RFE.
Here's the RFE:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=52558
Thanks,
Kurt Anderson
Sr. Programmer/Analyst - Application Development, Service Delivery Platform
-----Original Message-----
From: wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MichaelQuigley@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 2:21 PM
To: wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] Implied subfield definition not in Outline
I have to agree with Jon, This is in no way an RFE issue. RFE=Request for Enhancement. This is just a plain bug. Don't frustrate your users by making us vote for a bug fix.
<soap box>
I think someone at the management level at IBM needs to rethink the way bugs and enhancements are thought about and handled. I've had an RFE rejected because, quote:
"This issue would be more easily resolved by opening a Problem Management Record (PMR), since it appears to be a defect or change in behavior in the product from previous releases."
So I open the PMR, and it's now been stuck for almost three months while it's evaluated as to whether it's really a defect, change in behavior, or whatever. If that's "more easily resolved", then I would hate to see what the delay for an RFE would be.
My experience with the development team from Toronto (and from Rochester,
too) is they are great people who really want to make and support the best product. They do an admirable job of just that. But management or policies/procedures are getting in the way.
</soap box>
Edmund,
I hope you're not getting so little sleep trying to get the next release/service pack/fix pack/... out the door. We really appreciate everything you and the rest of the team do.
Thanks,
Michael
wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 04/17/2014 05:36:28 PM:
----- Message from Jon Paris <jon.paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Thu, 17 Apr
2014 17:35:19 -0400 -----
To:
Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client for
System i & iSeries <wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
Re: [WDSCI-L] Implied subfield definition not in Outline
That is not an RFE issue - it is a bug pure and simple. If the RPG
compiler can determine the size of the item and include it in the XRef
listing (which it can and does) so should the outline view. Period.
On 2014-04-17, at 11:52 AM, Kurt Anderson <Kurt.Anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hey List,
So I entered a PMR to report an issue where an implied subfield
definition was appearing as Unknown(0) in the outline.
Example:
D ds_Cust DS Qualified Inz
D Data Dim( 999999 ) Ascend
D Cust# 6p 0 Overlay( Data: *next ) Inz
D Cycle 1a Overlay( Data: *next ) Inz
D DropCDRs n Overlay( Data: *next ) Inz
D TLRNRating n Overlay( Data: *next ) Inz
The outline gives the definition for Data as Unknown(0). But the
compiler understands it.
--
This is the Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio Client for System i & iSeries (WDSCI-L) mailing list To post a message email: WDSCI-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/wdsci-l
or email: WDSCI-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/wdsci-l.
midrange.com
