Feedback Bugs Fixing vs New Features

Is a General question as a general discution.

In my opinion in software design, a bug fix is a onest new feature.

 

Back in the days of Unity 5.x I would have voted on this poll, but we now have the ability to choose between features and bug fixing by choosing either Unity TECH (x.1 through x.3 releases) or Unity LTS (x.4 releases). Just choose the one that is best for your project at any point in time.

 

Yes, I think about giving voting 2 options or the "Both" option and I probably vote both too. But is not the point of "VS" or "||".

Yes, Unity 5 was terrible especially each time in Windows I close my game. Now Unity is making pretty well bug fixing and at the same time developing new features. I'm pretty happy.

I was making a bug report and there is only one resource available. Not in Unity but in the game dev workflow software industry. If she/he fixes the bug he/she does not develop a new feature. what should I do, ask for a bug-fixing or yield? That's the reason why I make this thread. Is true that not each bug is the same, some of them are presented much less often and others do not have a workaround; on the other side, a new feature can cover up and fix the bug or in some cases create more noise.

I place it in General Discussion as a general thing.

 

Sorry if I'm wasting your time. NO, I'm ok! is just general.
As a developer, I wish to know a general opinion and were to give priority in my game.

 

Submit a bug report and let the developer choose whether it's common or serious enough to fix.

 

LoL the developer is asking me if it should fix it or make a new feature that could cover that.
But we know if is new will get hotfixes and not a bugfix?

Maby the question is here is also bugfixes vs hotfix?
I do not know well the difference.

 

Finishing already announced but not/half implemented features.

 

It is a false choice. Software development and management is a delicate (or sometimes not really delicate) dance between bug fixing and feature development/improvement.
The thing is, no one else know what is better for the software than the developers themselves. No one else have the information how the bugs are affecting users. Every software will have bugs, smaller or larger. But every bug has different impact. Sometimes fixing a bug is doing more harm than good and there are times when riding out the bug (not fixing it intentionally) and choosing new features are more beneficial. It depends how many users are affected and how seriously.
For example rendering glitch which can occur for anyone at any occasion is serious, because it ruins everyone's experience with the software. Rendering bug which only occurs on one specific OS version with a specific set of drivers and specific version numbers and specific hardware has much less impact.Obviously sometimes other considerations should be taken, for example it can be a PR nightmare if the one user who is affected is a journalist with a sharp pen... or anything similar.

 

Slightly tangential, but I'm really disappointed at the package manager. With features getting untangled and detached from the editor, I though I would be able (at least up to a point), to make the choice this thread suggest per feature.

Meaning I would be able to ignore 90% of what Unity is doing and stay updated (well, up to a point) on the couple of things I care about.

How it ended up working out is that every package needs specific editor versions to work properly, which kinda makes the whole being separate from the editor thing, pointless. All it seems to have done is complicate how Unity releases things, and complicates my upgrade from Unity to Unity versions (since every time random packages get added that I have to remove, and dependencies change, which I have to investigate, etc).

 

New feature development and bug fixes both are required for any software to remain relevant over the long term. This is like asking what is more important, air to breath or water to drink?

Without new feature development, competing products eventually pull ahead in their feature set, which pulls users away from your product. The end result is your product dies. Without bug fixes, over the long term your product becomes impractical to use. The end result is your product dies. One is not more important than the other, without both and given enough time there is no more Unity.

 

My main complaint is that the documentation is getting separated from the core docs making it necessary to either look at older copies of the docs or take additional time to find the new ones. I'm completely fine dealing with the package manager but I would love for the docs to be centralized rather than the mess they are now.

 

The question is for the user.
How do you feel using a generic software?
I think that your point of view is from the developer side. I agree but,
If you are designing a Ferrari, as good as you can be, a Schumacher user knows better where the bugs are and what is needed. So depends on the type of developer. If is an enthusiastic market pusher one as you are, probably yes. But if is just a hiding destructive employee... more features more bugs...

Sorry but I disagree, a good feature is when problems are solved in an elegant way.
at some point, you finish fixing and start a new feature. The bug fixing list is not endless, at some point, there are no more bugs to fix. And if it is endless also is not a problem. As was pointed out earlier a bug fixing is also a new missing feature. If that feature does not work is not a feature at all.
Quality vs Speed?
Is possible to finish adding a lot of broken features as a cover-up to attract new users and go on like this. This doesn't mean, you as a user, like this type of approach. I'm not taking that Unity does that. I mean in general as a bad practice only for bad marketing purpose.

So 50% 50% is in the middle with some missing bugs, features that do not work well and missing features that you are not going to use anyway because you know that could not work well. The developer put a lot of time but not enough. And that remember bureaucracy.

Yes, this is complicated. Is like a non-stop machine that points only forwards.
And also the documentation as Ryiah point out.

 

Okay, up until now, since you didn't mention Unity, I thought we're talking in general. Because the "how you feel" is not applicable in general (what you implied in your OP).
Users usually don't have enough information to decide. Obviously some people can make educated guesses, but they are guesses. Obviously everyone can have an opinion about it, but that does not worth much, since you have a million users, you have a million opinions. When you have a sizable user-base on the same page, that's something to work with.

Also whatever the users feel, does not make it good for the software automatically. You as a user obviously is bothered if you find a bug. So you push for bugfix, because you're bothered, but if the developer spend N time with your bugfix, which has a rare occasion, so does not affect the majority of the users, then they don't work on other features which may bring in Y new users and make Z old users more deeply tied to the software.

BTW, I'm a software engineer/engineering manager for a living, I don't think like an average user. Besides I think average users are taking too much for granted and usually have zero clue how continuous software development work.

 

Yes, yes but is not Unity.

 

The partial result at the moment is 70% 30% similar to this article:
https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/ho...ixes-or-new-features-in-pro-tools-the-results

 

It is infinitesimally rare for a feature to be so broken as to not be a feature at all. Typically bugs in features revolve around use cases outside of how the developer and QA were using the feature during testing, unexpected interactions with other features, or platform specific bugs. If you use the feature the same way the QA regression test case used it with a passing result, it will almost certainly work for you even though it is broken when used outside of those parameters.

Also, bug fixing can never be finished in software as complicated as Unity, because the time and hardware resources required to test every feature with every setting in combination with every other feature with every setting, on every platform, with every OS version, every hardware variant, every driver version, simply is impossible. Bugs will always slip through because of this. That doesn't even consider that the platforms themselves are constantly changing.

 

This 100%.

 

If it's not about Unity then I absolutely don't understand this thread. What is it about exactly? Why is the "Feedback" tag? What feedback did you provide to Unity? Why is it on a Unity forum? What are we talking about if not Unity? There is no such thing as "what do you feel, what is more important bug-fix or new feature" in general. What software? How many bugs it has? Is it feature-complete? Is it commercial? Is it b2b? Is it freeware? Your answers will be vastly different as you make your query more and more exact. As usual.

 

This is more for letting know developers like you and me how to consider create and maintain ower own software.

Yes, I was not clear in the tile before voting and is my mistake. I apologise.
In detail, when I place answer n°4 I was replaying to Rhia and at the same time Unity (very fast) place the question n°3. So in n4 look like I'm answering yes. In n°5 I clarify that as soon I was able.

Anyway I know is a Unity forum and not Windows Notepade or Microsoft Paint forum users.

I was making general software research in General Discussion section (with no Unity support) for making a decision.
To understand what people need.

Here is a general discussion section with no support. And that is good and expected. Surprise me when I found the Feedback tag in this sector. Since could be interesting for Unity I just place Feedback. Unity support answer.

Because I thought it could be interesting to know what people think as an indication of the market as a general response in the software sector. It can be useful for brand management and selection of advertising objectives and a rethinking of strategies? In simple, because perhaps many brands or software developers do not know that users prefer more fixing than features(today 65%vs35%). Without any intention of harming someone. Each user vote, someone in general. And as you point out others (or mostly?) thinking is related to Unity software.

Well, I was thinking about other software that is baggy. But when I vote, I was thinking in this:
I like for example in the evolution of how nature fixes the water fish eye when the animal came out of the water. Instead of creating a new one specific for looking into the air and deprecating the old one. Looks like more efficient to me.

I like the Unity way of searching in the market. I mean market research analyst by making questions forms. I always try to fill when they ask for because I also learn a lot. Also, early private beta testing.