Michael Gueterman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>donna (et. al.),
>
><snip>
>3) i think a general discussion about patches would be useful as well.
>> i think everyone is aware that patches are having a hard time making
>> their way to gr status.  i know it's got a lot of people frustrated,
>> but i'm not sure there's a good understanding about why.  again, if
you
>> have a comment, please post it back to the list for summarization at
>> the meeting.
>
>Although I really don't know, I'm guessing one reason may be the lack
>of qualified beta testers.  If that is the case, then that becomes a
>double edged sword.  On one hand no one wants HP to GR a patch
>that hasn't been sufficiently tested, but on the other if fewer and
>fewer shops have the ability to participate in the beta program,
>fewer and fewer GR patches will make it out the door.  A middle
>ground may be found by including the beta as an unsupported patch
>made available on JAZZ and include the results of those people opting
>that route in the decision to GR a patch.  That's just one thought, but
>the wider issue is simply to get more people into the beta in the
>first place.
>
>Regards,
>Michael L Gueterman

Ditto what Michael says - put the patches on JAZZ, unsupported with
plenty of caveats and let a wider installation base beta test, then
report results back through either JAZZ or itrc.hp.com or both. The
reality is these days not everyone in a production environment is
paying HP for support (so they're not HP customers, but that's another
discussion...).

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *