Thanks, Matt. I always appreciate the official feedback on this unofficial mailing list. Hopefully you can find whoever is in charge of the build numbers on the Feature Details box, too.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Matt Chotin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]<chimpathetic%40gmail.com>> > 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, > > -- Jason
