[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A burning issue
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 16:04:49 +0100
From: Pat Prosser <pat%computer-science.strathclyde.ac.uk%NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK@yktvmh.watson.ibm.com>
User supplied bug patches to be supported by a manufacturer ....
are you kidding. Consider the support implications. Imagine using the
same strategy on other systems/products. What would it do to warranties etc.
What sort of headaches could it cause the supplier?
Perhaps I was unclear in my first message. The "disclaimer envelope" on
each patch should (1) remove all obligations for Symbolics software
support, much like the "unsupported" source files, and (2) would tell
the users that the code does not contain Symbolics source secrets. I
assumed the contents of the "disclaimer" were obvious, but apparently
not. Yes, it is stupid for a company to support user patches.
I only intended for Symbolics to determine whether a given message
contains "company secrets" (read: source that they don't want released
to the general public). The patches would be offered on an as-is basis,
where comments can be made via the 1lispm-patches0 mailing list.
- Re: A burning issue
- From: "Pat\ Prosser" <pat%computer-science.strathclyde.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK>