On Thu, Feb 03/00, "Daniel P. Sniderman" <fuzzbone@...> wrote:

>
> On the other hand I have to take issue with calling Verant "liars". I don't
> recall the exact words they used - but it is possible that they whether we
> agree with them or not - they may have "fixed" the song to work the way they
> intended to. Again - not sure of the wording - so perhaps they have been
> less than forward if this is the case. You could still call them liars in
> this case - and it's a matter of semantics.

Just a point but the actual claim was that Verant are liars when they
claim they have someone testing the bard. I think this claim is valid,
as we have way too much evidence to show that no testing is done on the
bard before patching at all. Even testing of changes specific to the
bard. What other explanation is there for the fact that they go live
with code where new bard songs don't work, levitate changes completely
break the bard levitate song and other problems we've seen.

Another interesting thing I haven't seen anyone comment on. Last
(emergency) patch they said they had to put in some changes half
finished when they put in the fixes for the network code, i.e. the necro
pet changes. Don't any of the programmers on the list find it odd that
they don't appear to have some kind of source control system that would
allow patching of the currently running code so they didn't have to go
live with partly finished changes?

--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*