Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!nosc!crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks
From: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Bugs in 2.04
Message-ID: <3888@orbit.cts.com>
Date: 26 Jan 91 02:25:02 GMT
Sender: news@orbit.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 67

jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:
>In article <91022.110834GHGAQA4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> GHGAQA4@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Tyberghein Jorrit) writes:
>>  I have AmigaDOS 2.04 and I discovered some alarming bugs :
>
>	Interesting, since we've never released anything called 2.04 yet.
>We have sent to developers who signed non-disclosure statements copies of
>the latest beta kickstart (36.314).  Bug reports should always include
>kickstart and workbench revision numbers, and should be submitted through
>normal channels (bugs@cbmvax.commodore.com, on BIX in amiga.com/bug.reports
>or amiga.cert/bug.reports, adsp groups or support managers in europe or
>physical mail).  Posting them here may or may not get them into our database.
>If you are not a registered developer and was not sent the kickstart by
>Commodore, what are you doing with it?  Such things are not for general
>distribution, and with good reasons.
>
>>    The list of locks for the RAM disk is corrupt (my debugger
>>    and Xoper crash when they try to list them). This was not
>>    the case in AmigaDOS 2.02.
>
>	This seems strange.  2.00/2.01 ramdisk used CPTR's instead of BPTR's
>for chaining locks, but as of 2.02 (I think), we went back to BPTR's to keep
>some debugging utilities from breaking.  BTW, using those pointers is at
>least theoretically illegal, since there's no way to keep it from changing
>out from under your access of it, but it's nice to keep debuggers from
>breaking any worse than they are now.  I'll pull down the latest Xoper
>(since you didn't give a rev number I have no idea which one you used) and
>try it.
>
>>    Some processes (like DF0, RAM, WB_2.x, HARD) all have
>>    a corrupt process seglist. Again my debugger and Xoper
>>    give wrong information when trying to look at these.
>>    This was also not the case in AmigaDOS 2.02.
>
>	They look fine to me (looking at them directly in wack).  You didn't
>say how they were corrupted.
>
>	Don't get me wrong, bug reports are quite useful if they include
>enough information to handle them.  However, they must include that
>information, and be sent to right place.  Also, betatest kickstarts should
>not travel outside people they're supposed to go to.  They may have bugs that
>we would not allow in releases to users, etc, etc.  They confuse the issue
>of supporting users (witness people who've been bitten by running pre-release
>versions of 1.3 and FFS for years after 1.3 was actually released).  Our
>developers sign non-disclosure forms to cover things we send them, and should
>try to live up to that agreement.  I noticed this message, and will look
>into some of the things mentioned here, but that's no guarantee that I will
>do so for all messages here.  Use the bug-reporting channels mentioned above.
>Remember that my presence here is not official nor required.
>
>-- 
>Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
>{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
>The compiler runs
>Like a swift-flowing river
>I wait in silence.  (From "The Zen of Programming")  ;-)

 
This brings to mind a question.  Is it allowed for a developer who has signed
a non-disclosure to allow others to use his machine with the beta?  or just
not for them to give it or any support documentation or files out?  I ask this
because i developer friend has allowed me to test several things under his
beta.  if this is not allowed i will discontinue, but I was just curious.  any
help as of what is and is not allowed would be appreciated.  

UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil
INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org