"Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1019148031.14139.0.nnrp-14.9e984b29_at_news.demon.co.uk...
>
> I think that your judgement on this case may
> be a bit harsh. Given that it took about 24 hours
> for the patch to appear from the moment the
> post hit the newsgroup, it clearly wasn't a case
> of:
> "It's too difficult / dangerous / expensive to fix,
> let's hope no-one else notices before 9.2"
I'd say that Oracles reaction once they realized the problem was real and
serious has been excellent. As someone who has also to support other vendors
products where we often get a delay before patch availability and oftentimes
several patches for the same problem. That all said I do feel that a bug of
this seriousness shouldn't have slipped through QA. I have some sympathy too
for the metalink analyst(s?) who missed the significance of what they were
seeing. that is all to easy to do especially in a front line support
environment.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
Received on Thu Apr 18 2002 - 14:36:04 CDT
