[ngw] Antw: Re: GW2014 R2 SP1 release date??

Danita Zanre dzanre.ngwlist at gmail.com
Fri Feb 19 15:33:09 UTC 2016

I have been an active participant on every beta since WordPerfect Office 4.0b. There has never been an instance where WordPerfect/Novell/ATT/MF signed off on sending out the product with critical bugs. And yet issues always slip through. As has been mentioned, until you get it "out in the wild" the many permutations possible are impossible to emulate. And to my knowledge, the issues being discussed here were not "hot buttons" during this beta.  

I agree that client fixes would be nice ongoing. 



Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2016 at 07:31:24 MST, Jeffrey D. Sessler <jeff at scrippscollege.edu> wrote:

The difficulty with betas is that customers are typically unwilling to run them against their production systems, and as such, you’re really not going to find all of the esoteric problems, especially those that are caused by other lingering issues e.g. Indexes that are a little iffy.
 When I had time to participate in the betas, it was more to influence features since my organization was against running beta products in production. For previous GW betas I recall that Novell ran it in production within their own org. A eat your own dog food thing, but did this continue with R2 under MicroFocus? 

It would be helpful if MF would move to more public client releases outside of major support packs. Most problems are client based, so a more frequent client release schedule (and easier client updating) would be fantastic. I compare this to the release/updates for Outlook 2016 for Mac, where MS is putting out regular updates to address bugs and security issues, but also adding new features based on customer input. It just feels more agile.  


On 2/19/16, 4:20 AM, "ngw-bounces+jeff=scrippscollege.edu at ngwlist.com on behalf of Bruce Perrin" <ngw-bounces+jeff=scrippscollege.edu at ngwlist.com on behalf of Bruce.Perrin at lbb.texas.gov> wrote:

>I believe Georg is correct. The more people that are willing to beta
>test , the better the product will be. Everybody's setup is different. I
>can't imagine there is a good way to test every possible configuration
>without having as many of the folks that use the product day in and day
>out participating in beta programs as possible. The more diverse the
>Participation in beta, at least for me and my organization, is an
>investment in the future in a product that we believe is superior to the
>others in the space. It is a way to better understand the product as
>well. I can tell you that I understand the product MUCH better because
>of having participated in beta. It is also a way to help shape the
>product itself. New idea's are always welcome I think.
>We have not seen most of the issues discussed in this thread, but I am
>sure that is because our setup is different than yours.
>Consider volunteering for beta. It goes a long way toward making a
>great product better.
>Just my 1/2 cent worth.
>>>> Sven Schuchmann <1010sven1010 at gmail.com> 2/19/2016 3:14 AM >>>
>2016-02-19 8:30 GMT+01:00 Georg Fritsch FCP <gf at fcp.at>:
>> But, if YOU test the software, you can be sure the things which do
>not work for YOU are fixed. (and if not, you are already warned)
>> Other people will not find all the bugs cropping up at your site.
>That is true, but I am talking about bugs like "the email is only
>shown in webaccess and not on the fat client", "embedded Images are
>missing in email", "Notifier PopUp is corrupt", "POA crashes"…
>I think these are basic functions I can expect to work correctly,
>without any testing from my side!
>If I requested a new feature and should test it in a beta I wouldn't
>have a problem with that.
>> I am surprised that such major issues with R2 slipped through. Maybe
>the beta sites are heavily biased and do not reflect an average GW
>I think R2 Release *is* the beta...
>cu SveN
>ngw mailing list
>ngw at ngwlist.com
ngw mailing list
ngw at ngwlist.com


More information about the ngw mailing list