Re: here's a good one from dizwell on the recent product launch

From: Michel Cadot <micadot{at}altern{dot}org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:26:04 +0200
Message-ID: <46a0d40a$0$25850$426a74cc@news.free.fr>

"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend_at_sbcglobal.net> a écrit dans le message de news: 46A0C746.3000007_at_sbcglobal.net...
| Noons wrote:
| > On Jul 19, 12:35 pm, Mark Townsend <markbtowns..._at_sbcglobal.net>
| > wrote:
| >>> Nuno gave me bug 5092688.8
| ...
| >>
| >> I don't think this is what Nuno is talking about
| >
| > Let me see, Mark: I provide the bug
| > number to Jonathan and "this is not what
| > I'm talking about"? Are you even
| > READING?
| >

|

| Yes.

|

| You claimed that "Oracle continues to deliver new releases without
| fixing first what are absolutely egregious bugs."

|

| You also stated that the database (?) "fails consistently for nearly 7
| years and the "dedicated" folks do preciously NOTHING to fix problems
| that have seen three major releases without a permanent fix"

|

| This concerns me. I asked you for some pointers to such problems so I
| could investigate them.

|

| You told me offline to go pound sand.

|

| However, based on a posting on your blog, Jonathan offered 5092688.8 as
| a potential example. You seemed to indicate that this was a correct example.

|

| However when I looked at the specific problem, it has been fixed within
| 7 days of it being reported, it was fixed before 11g, it was not 7 years
| old, and it has not been outstanding for three active releases.

|

| Nuno - you have our attention. I would love to have concrete examples of
| what you are reporting in the forum. I can then assure you that any
| such examples will be actively reviewed at the highest levels in
| development.

|

| But you need to throw me a bone - give me a list of specific SRs or Bugs
| that you think are indicative. I would love to remove as much as the
| invective from this conversation as possible to get to a description of
| a problem that is actionable.

As you talk about a bone, here's one I found 2 days ago (SR6427362.992). It is closed as a duplicate of bug 2499608 opened on 06-AUG-2002 and never fixed.

The description is the following one:

<quote>
When NLS_NUMERIC_CHARACTERS is not set to the default '.,' we get the following errors:
SQL> alter session set nls_numeric_characters='!:';

Session altered.

SQL> select to_number('1,234','9,999') from dual; select to_number('1,234','9,999') from dual *
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01722: invalid number

SQL> select to_number('1,234','9,999.9') from dual; TO_NUMBER('1,234','9,999.9')

---

1234

1 row selected.

First question: Why the error is reached in the first case? Second question: Then why it is not in the second one? </quote>

OK, it's not a terrific bug, easy to workaround, but why 5 years without being fixed?

Regards
Michel Received on Fri Jul 20 2007 - 10:26:04 CDT