If the changes people submit for inclusion in IBO will not work on all
versions of Delphi I support I try to IFDEF them out. If I cannot figure out
a way to do that, they get rejected. In your case, you have two options.
Rewrite your changes so they will work with Delphi 3 and 4 or suggest
changes enabling you to put them in your own sub-class and then your code
can be plugged in at that level and IBO can continue to work the same for
everyone else.

Jason Wharton
CPS - Mesa AZ
http://www.ibobjects.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "mmenaz" <mmenaz@...>
To: <IBObjects@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:33 PM
Subject: [IBO] Re: IB_Date (testing, QA, etc.)


> Replied each sentence below :)
>
> --- In IBObjects@y..., "Jason Wharton" <jwharton@i...> wrote:
> > I plan to avoid the "release in order to test" mentality. The only time
I
> > will release in order to test is when I specifically indicate a release
as a
> > test release. I assume that the majority of my customers don't want to
feel
> > like their efforts are doubled as my QA efforts.
>
> Yes, you are definetly right. And consider that if you flag a release as a
"test" one, usually you have to introduce significant (for the programmer)
advantages to make them test it...
> When I submit some improvements to you it's something I've tested in the
situation I'm using it, so I count on your test too. But what I meant is
that we two can test only a (small) finite number of situations, so we will
never be sure about the testing.
> Beyond this specific situation (TIB_Date), do you think would be good
having a "tester" release and a "production worthy" one (like Linux)? A
developer release tested by selected guys that want to help you, but also
open for everyone "brave". As a IBO contributor, I would be much sure about
modification I make too.
>
> >
> > IBO is something I ask money for and as a result I feel it is my
> > responsibility to make sure my releases are production worthy upon
release.
>
> Yes, Borland is asking money for VCL too but D6 ActionManager component is
not that great example of QA <g>. Nothing I've seen compares with IBO in
quality and details.
>
> > I do a significant amount of testing and take great caution to make sure
> > this remains the case.
>
> Thank you, I benefit from it too.
>
> >
> > Your changes were all supposed to be "rolled back" because of the other
> > problem that other code introduced.
>
> I really use them, so I will have to inherit from your code a specialized
component of apply the changes every release you submit (I will see the best
solution). That is not a big issue, but since I would like to keep being in
syncro with IBO standard and have other people benefit from my work (I've
spent a lot of time upon it), can we collaborate in fixing it for your
customers too? Or do you think that it does nothing that worths the trouble
or that can not be fixed for all the platforms you support?
>
> Thanks
> Marco Menardi