TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-01 > 0979255137


From: "Wendell H. Wilcox" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] List of buglets?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:18:57 -0600
References: <7B3D67AA81EBD111AC4000A0C96B23F709B36103@orsmsx32.jf.intel.com>


I have to both disagree and agree with this discussion. Bug lists do in fact
exist and are maintained by software companies and duplicates are flagged as
such and every problem is tracked. BUT this costs money and the end users
have to pay for it. For my money, high impact problems need to be noted, and
Bob has done that on this list. all the others just need to be fixed and
noted in changes.txt. I like the price of the product now as well as the
features. I don't always agree with decisions but there was never a product
that didn't have its detractors.

Wendell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grawrock, David" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: [TMG] List of buglets?


> Though I don't think he needs it, I'm going to support Bob's side of the
> equation.
>
> First a master bug list is a messy thing. It includes all sorts of
> information that no one except the developers need. It might have source
> code, function names and other data. It might be very, very, very cryptic.
> So who takes the time to massage this database? It is a real full time job
> believe me. And if it is someone outside of WG how do they mandate that
the
> list be up to date?
>
> Changes.txt tells you the fixes, but how would correlate your bug with a
> GEDCOM import with the EOF read problem listed in a bug list. Only after
> fixing the problem does the programmer find out that OH that was that bug
> also. And that goes into changes.txt.
>
> One thing to remember is that a bug dressed up is just a feature. And
> sometimes that decision is made very late in the release cycle, something
> that was a problem turns out to be what people want.
>
> People have been after software companies for years to put their entire
bug
> database on-line. Nobody does. The closest you get is to be a beta tester
> where you see things happening. At some companies beta testers have direct
> access to the bug database so that they don't enter duplicate bugs. But
that
> is rare.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> Diana and Bob wrote
>
> It doesn't quite feel right to disagree with Bob, but as the person who
> originally posted the list of buglets suggestion, I respectfully do so.
>
> Bob Velke wrote:>
> >
> > The reason that the company is not involved with such an effort is that,
> > unless someone is dedicated to keeping it up to date, it gets woefully
out
> > of date and is more misleading than instructive.
>
> I appreciate that everyone at Wholly Genes is overworked at the moment
> (and the timing of this request is lousy), but surely there must be a
> master list of known bugs. If someone reports a bug and Wholly Genes
> confirms it (not an interpretation issue or a problem that just effects
> one user) it must get added to this list. And when it is fixed it must
> get taken off the list.
>
> Bob, you said at the end of your message there weren't that many of
> them, so why would it be that difficult to let us know about them?
> Again, I wasn't even suggesting that TMG post it on their website
> (although that would be the ideal), but simply that someone be willing
> to confirm for us that a bug was "on the list" so that we could
> accurately post the information ourselves. And yes, I understand your
> concern that an item be deleted after it has been noted as corrected in
> a change text.
>
> > If one wants an historical list of bugs and fixes, changes.txt is a
> > much more accurate source.
>
> But that misses the point. I am very familiar with the changes.txt, but
> they do not tell me anything at all about bugs that are still in the
> system and that might be affecting the way my software is currently
> working. They only tell me what has been fixed... which by the very
> definition of "change" has to be after the fact.
>
> > As has been discussed here, there is a known problem in v4.0c regarding
> > renumbering of embedded citations, some export issues for WordPerfect
> > users, a problem with Visual Chartform and custom page sizes on HP
> > printers, and a few other issues that are mostly isolated to individual
> > users.
>
> I realize the above was not, in any way, intended to be an all inclusive
> list but there are two other problems that you do not mention that I
> would love to know you are "officially aware of and working on". They
> are examples of how much simpler it would be from the standpoint of the
> user if we could check an official list.
>
> First, I sent an email to Wholly Genes several months ago and reported
> that the exclusion marker does not work on relationship source
> citations. I received an email back that this appeared to be a bug and
> that it would be reported to you for consideration. Do I assume you
> decided it was a bug and that it will eventually be fixed? Or is it
> possible you got the message and decided the "show relationship sources"
> under report definitions overrode the exclusion marker in this case by
> design?
>
> And ... I use split citation fields and unique sources extensively, but
> you cannot currently use both of them together. Is this a bug or simply
> the way it works? I read all the archived TMG-L messages and discovered
> several that mention the problem but do not describe it as a bug - just
> say "don't try to use both features together". I called Wholly Genes in
> Nov. and was told by the gentleman at tech support that he didn't know
> if it was a bug or not. I posted a message to TMG-L in late Nov. and
> received a reply from another user that it was indeed a bug but that it
> wasn't fixed in 4.0c. Now I have spent many hours entering data under
> the assumption the problem will eventually be fixed, but I don't really
> know YOU consider it a bug and you are the one who matters here :)
>
> > Like _all_ software, TMG has some bugs which were found after
> > release, but I believe that we have a stronger record than most in
> > providing regular fixes in the form of free downloadable updates.
>
> There was never meant to be a suggestion otherwise. And TMG support is
> a level above any other company I have ever known. I have sent in an
> email and had personal phone calls back with a solution while I was
> still sitting at my computer. Remarkable.
>
> TMG, wonderful as it is, has a learning curve. People start out with
> the basics, then start learning all the other great features. But as
> you do this, and make decisions, some of which have long term effects on
> the way you design reports and share data, it would be very helpful to
> know if there are official bugs that affect the way things are working.
>
> > I do expect there to be a v4.0d soon, despite the fact that most of our
> > development effort is now on TMG v5.0.
>
> Cool. And I would wait for 5.0 if need be - this was never a complaint
> about the existance of bugs, or the amount of time it takes to resolve
> them; I just want to know "for sure" what ones exist and might be
> impacting me.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to participate in this discussion.
>
> Diana P.
>
>
>


This thread: