Re: Bug Reports

["Kenneth B. Frank" kfrank@xxxxxxxx]

auerbach@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------

David-- it the ideal world you may be quite right. I am simply being
realistic. If a developer doesn't have what he/she needs to reproduce a
problem right at hand, the odds of it getting fixed are remote.

By the way, I am not imposing anything on you that we don't require from
our people internally. I am sorry if you have submitting information
previously, but its not likely that someone will be able to put their
hands on it that easily.

K.