One of the complaints I keep hearing is that new tools get implemented without enough user input as to what is working and what is really needed. I got a call last week from the group responsible for writing and maintaining the patch portion of the ITRC. They are conducting a survey to find out what new tools are needed by internal users and customers. Part of the survey is to find out what improvements can be made to the current tools.
Here are the issues that have been raised here so far and which ones I'll raise at the survey meeting (this came out to be a lot longer then expected, sorry, I was on a roll :-)
- ITRC search mode needs a true search by date function. Not a search that can find all patches issued in February 2004 but rather a search that can find all the patches issued SINCE February 2004, note that if this happens it will probably obsolete the Master Lists.
- Searches need to be able to be conducted across mulitple versions rather than having to do multiple searches. I will also raise searches across multiple architectures but if we could get the multiple versions part that would be a big step. These first two will have the highest priority.
- Need to be able to put a patch on hold immediately.
- today the ITRC sorts patches by rating then date then alphabetically. Can we let the user choose the sort characteristics they want with the current sort being the default.
- there was a request to use cookies to save what patches a user has already downloaded and mark them as such in the search results. Interesting. I will raise the suggestion but I've heard customers fume at having to use cookies, others don't mind. Sounds like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
:-).
- clearer link to the Master Lists. This one is something I have to take a look at. When I issue a new master list, I give it a rating on 1 and name it so that it is alphabetically first. Hopefully this keeps it as the first "kit" listed on a search. Apparently that isn't working. I'll have to see what else can be done.
- release notes in plain text...ah...they are. I'm not sure where this comment is coming from. Maybe it is related to the next point.
- Subscriber's Choice is just plain broken for VMS users. It is all but useless or getting the patch notifications and documentation - it doesn't come out often enough, documentation is HTML format, forces uers to go to another link to get the information, with all the marketing info it looks like something from the Shopping Channel. Customers have repeatedly told me that SC is spam. What is need is immediate notification of patch releases in simple direct format.
(Along this line, OPENVMS.ORG gets notified when a VMS *operating system* patch is released. They maintain a subscription list of users and will send the notices to users as they are received. It's a simple matter to go to openvms.org to sign up for these patch notices...until Subscriber's Choice is fixed. Note that this distribution is NOT a replacement for Subscriber's Choice and customers still need to sign up for that service. That is the official notification channel for HP customers for a lot of information besides just patches.
- layered product patches can not be found easily. I don't really think this is an ITRC issue. I think it is more related to the way patches get to the ITRC. We'll take a look at how it can be better.
- Image Index. Sorry to be dense but I'm still not sure what is meant by this. Do you want to see an index of all images shipped in, say, V7.3-2? Or in index of what images are shipped in each kit. If the latter, it's there in the kit documentation. If the former, what benefit does that give?
George
