Hi Jason, Thanks for your feedback. We probably could see if we could invest some time in making sure there are some explanations for the fields. And I agree that the sorted order of lots of fields is a nightmare. What you are running into is the fact that we have a lot of internal milestones and builds and therefore we want the bug system to be able to reflect those for internal purposes, but I wonder if there is any way we could provide a filter for just the public ones and sort by the most likely for you to encounter them.
I'll see what we could do to maybe get some help links for some of the explanations. I don't know that we can explain every features, we may need you to just make your best guess, but at least for projects we can see what we need to do. Best, Matt On 12/19/08 10:55 AM, "Pan Troglodytes" <[email protected]> wrote: I've put off writing this for a while out of laziness. Going out of my way to report bugs is already sort of outside of the scope of what I should be working on, but I consider it very important for the quality of the product. And it helps that my bugs are typically answered and fixed. But griping about the bug report system itself seemed a little too meta. Plus, I kept debating on whether I should file it as a bug or email it here or dig someone at Adobe's address up or what. So I've settled on this, here goes. Generally, the bug system works well. Yes, it can be a bit frustrating to find out if there's already a bug with the issue you're going to report. Yes, those old bugs imported from the old DB are maddening when the subject line makes you think they're the same. But all in all, it works ok. There are really only a few things that really bug me. Also, I'm sorry for the terrible pun. My main problem is with documentation. There needs to be some explanations as to what choices in the various combo boxes mean so that we, as users, can more intelligently give you feedback. Take for example the bug I'm about to enter. I found a bug in the compiler so that it's not parsing the code right. This happens both in Flex Builder and in mxmlc. I start out and it asks "Project". I wasn't sure on the dropdown if it should be "ActionScript Compiler (ASC)" or "Flex Builder". I finally figured out I could go through Browse Projects and click on individual projects to get descriptions of them, though not all of them had descriptions. Even after entering enough bugs to get a t-shirt, it took me this long to find that. There's plenty of room on that first page to have a list of the projects and a short paragraph defining the scope of the project so submitters can more eas! ily pick the project. FYI, I eventually decided on ActionScript Compiler. Next you have the Issue Type. If you click on the little help box, you get this help for feature requests versus minor enhancements: Feature Request A new feature to the product. Minor Enhancement A new enhancement to the product. I had a better idea about the difference between those two BEFORE I clicked on the help. No matter if you choose Bug, Feature Request or Minor Enhancement, you still get the same list of severities on the next page. So you can choose Bug->Enhancement/Task or you can choose Minor Enhancement->Crash Hang. I realize that this may just be a limitation of JIRA, but it's a little distracting. Along with this, minor enhancements get all the other boxes like Discoverability, Reproducibility, Regression, etc. that really don't apply to them. Feature requests don't get that, but then again there's the whole fuziness about the difference between those two things. Now you go on to choose the Component the bug is found in. I have never found a page that actually gives descriptions of the various components. And some of these leave me scratching my head. Much as with the projects, there should really be an easy way to get a sentence or three about each component so you can more easily decide where to put new bugs. Either that, or force all bugs to go to an "unassigned" component and let the bug reviewers sort it properly. None Future Player 10 - Code Complete Flex 4 QVM 1 - Code Complete Flex 3 - Beta 2 FP 9.2 - Code Complete FP 9.1.6 - Code Complete FP 9.1.5 - GMC Lockdown FP 9.1 - GMC Flash 9.0 Erm... I'm using Flex Builder 3 and the compiler is barfing. Help? These are specific to each project, so I'm baffled why so many versions exist for the compiler when generally errors in it will happen before you ever get to the flash player. Of course, this is still probably better than the list of version that comes up when you choose the Flex Builder project: None Post Gumbo SDK Integration I9 MAX I18N 3.0.2 I8 I7 I6 I5 3.0.1 I4 I3 Moxie Release (Fix Before Release) RC6 RC5 RC4 RC3 RC2 RC1 RC 0 Moxie M3 (zero) Moxie Japanese Beta 2 Moxie M3 (Beta 2) Moxie M2 (Beta 1) Moxie M1 (Alpha) Moxie M0 2.0.1 Hotfix 2 2.0.1 English (Released) 2.0.1 Japanese (Released) 2.0 English (Released) 2.0 Japanese (Released) (Planning) Moxie Candidates (Planning) Post Moxie That's a lot of versions. I have Flex Builder 3, the current version of FB that is being sold on Adobe's website, and it is the seventh one on the list. I think. Go to Help->Product Details->Feature Details: Flex Builder 3 Version: 3.0.205647 I used to think I had version 3.0.2. Only now as I'm typing this post do I realize that I misread that and if I go here: Help->About Adobe Flex Builder 3... Splash screen comes up and in the bottom right: Version 3.0 (build 3.0.1.205647) Well that's a bit more obvious, isn't it. It should be, I guess, but since there was no 3.0 on the list I though they must have some weird numbering that meant 3.0.205647 was actually 3.0.2 builder 05647. Not a huge quibble, but those version numbers need to be a bit more tightened up. Addendum. I just upgraded to 3.0.2. The about box says Version 3.0 (build 3.0.2.214193) Feature Details still says: Flex Builder 3 Version: 3.0.214193 In any case, I still find that list of version bewildering. I think it's because it's every version in order. Perhaps it would be best to first list the released version, THEN list all the beta version, future version, hotfixes, etc. That's pretty much it. If I seemed harsh at all, please re-read the message with the image of a friendly guy smiling and just trying to help. Like I said, overall the system works well and the most important part is that there's actually someone reading the bug reports. Thanks for your time,
