> > The core engineering team uses Bugzilla. If they have to spend time > sifting > > through other venues that's time they cant spend on fixing and > > featuring Rev. Engineering also reads the Improve list, but again, > > there's a limit > to > > the amount of time they can spend on that. > > Lynn, it is my understanding, as stated by J. Landman Gay in > an earlier post, that CRASH reports get top priority to be > fixed. What you are saying is that the one free and automatic > crash reporting mechanism that is available to Runtime is > ignored over the preferred and cumbersome Bugzilla. Users of
Crashes get top priority, certainly. I have a limited understanding of the technical aspects of integrating the MS method into software - I don't think its all that hard based on the feedback Ive gotten from other companies - but that feedback is based on "regular" applications and not a development tool that has such a complex set of underpinnings as Revolution. I think it's a really neat mechanism! On the other hand, it's the back end that matters and that is not free and automatic - and that's why I think this topic is too complex to generalize about. Bugzilla is in place and, customers who encounter a problem do have to stop and think a minute before they use it. That eats some time - it also asks users to get involved in the process on the vendor's terms. The upside to that is that those reports that come usually have had some intelligence applied to them - and possibly the user has already determined that the crash was caused by some other software or something they did. Im not saying the MS solution won't be integrated at some point, it just hasn't made sense in the past to do so. Best regards, Lynn Fredricks Worldwide Business Operations Runtime Revolution, Ltd _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
