Re: Bugzilla lobbying

[Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> > I don't supposed this could be helped by calling it something like 
> > "lobbying" using "lobby-votes" or some such (PLUS appropriate 
> > explanatory language somewhere)? The word "voting" by itself tends to 
> > make people think they get to decide.
>
> Lobbying is definitely supposed to come with $$$ attached

Yes, Robert, I know your arguments on this well, and I tend to agree 
that money drives GCC development. I would certainly be more active in 
development if someone paid me to do so -- and such may, in fact be in 
the works because one of my customers needs certain features in GCC. 
Pragmatism rules the day.

I don't think lobbying/voting is at odds with "it won't get done if it 
isn't funded." The concept here is to give GCC developers an idea of 
what's important to users. Maybe some of GCC's funders will decide to 
pay for fixing a problem if they know how important it is to their 
customers?

User feedback is essential to good QA, assuming it is given attention. I 
note that commercial compiler vendors often ignore the needs of users; 
wtiness Microsoft's long-time failure to completely implement C++, of 
Sun's continual extension of Java that leaves old bugs (even those with 
high vote counts) to rot.

Surely GCC can do better.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing