> So I guess I need to ring somebody's bell and see why they decided to close > it when was "outstanding for a long time" due to BMC not implementing it.
Just to follow up on this, BMC tends to be aggressive in closing RFEs that have not been implemented across multiple release vehicles. In other words, if an RFE is logged against version 2.0, was not accepted for implementation in version 3.0 or 4.0, and isn't expected to make it into 5.0; it is a strong candidate for just closing it. This is done in an effort to be honest with those logging the RFE that it has not "made the cut" several times and therefore is not very likely to ever be implemented as described. For example, this RFE was submitted in June of 2005. It was closed in February of 2009 - about 4 years later. There are pros and cons to leaving RFEs open forever, which I'm not going to debate here, but I'm just letting you know why RFEs get closed even though they were originally excepted but not implemented. Even though a specific RFE is closed, the general capability might be part of a larger theme or broad enhancement found in a future release. Product Management does take into account smaller and historic "point" RFEs when making larger decisions around product direction - even if the point RFE had been closed as no plans to implement within a particular time period. For example, were a broader move made in a future release to support Rich Text or HTML formatting in character based fields, and that would subsume both this and other such "formatting" RFEs logged over the years. -David J. Easter Sr. Product Manager, Solution Strategy and Development BMC Software, Inc. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Powell Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:45 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Change Diary Field Font Here is the latest on the RFE: **************** Regarding: RFE0009445, at 2/3/2009 2:58:05 PM, created by xxxxx Hi , We have reevaluated this RFE and since it's been outstanding for a long time, we feel that this RFE won't be practical for us to implement now. ******************* So I guess I need to ring somebody's bell and see why they decided to close it when was "outstanding for a long time" due to BMC not implementing it. Tim On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 12:43 -0500, Carey Matthew Black wrote: > I think this could be done in the v7.1 Mid-Tier with a custom CSS for the > field. > I also think the v6.3's Mid-Tier could also be customized (with more > effort, but in a similar way) too. > > However for the User Tool I think we are out of luck for the kind of > specific (single field) font change. > > > However, as a form of workarounds... > > ) Maybe the text could be converted to a View field and displayed > with specific font settings in that display. It may not be trivial to > implement, but I think it could be done. > > ) Another approach would be to give the users a "report" button that > would preview the field's content. So that the effort the user needs > to take to see the fixed width content is reduced to a single button > click. > > Just a few thoughts. > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
