Re: Bug Reports

[auerbach@xxxxxxxx]

In <329315EF.6522@xxxxxxxx>, on 11/20/96
  at 09:30 AM, "Kenneth B. Frank"  said:

>Just to add a note to Robert Holmgren's words about the format for these
>bug submissions, they will only be useful to us if we can reproduce the
>problem relatively easily from the information given. Developers will make
>a good faith attempt to follow the steps you specify, but if they can't
>make the bug occur readily, they will probably go on the next bug.

Here's my problem with that. The bug I reported involves the chain printing
of long documents (books). I'd have to go dig up a years' old example and
then ship it to you. Not that I didn't do this twice already. Not that the
bug wasn't confirmed and recognized years ago. Why should I have to do it
again? Why can't I just mention the bug, you go look it up in your records
and say, "Ahha, David, here it is, just as you reported it and we'll get to
work on it right away." As I noted, tech support (once I got to someone who
seemed to know how the program worked) offered various work-arounds involved
re-formattings that weren't allowed for the camera-ready copy.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------
auerbach@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------------------