> I appreciate you folks (sysops) that do this (necessary) work. However,
There are a few Borlanders scanning QC. Craig Farrel probably being the most
active one if you look at the QC stats.
It could also be a clear indication that a lot of reports miss essential
info and that some reporters just post the report and then never come back.
I've had dozens of reports where I ask for more info or specific questions
and never hear back. That is obviously not the case for the reports you
So if you see a high quality QC which hasn't been tackled, feel free to post
a link here. That might also be a good idea if you can provide additional
info which a report currently lacks.
I'm afraid that's part of the reason why QC exists. So that QA can
concentrate on the bugs that are definitely reproducible and after
duplicates have been sorted out. Of course it would be nice if CodeGear
could hire half a dozen new QA engineers just to scan QC, but I doubt it's
going to happen.
Well, I think QC does its job pretty well in documenting and escalating
bugs. But that's only part of the equation, and doesn't help if R&D lacks
the time to actually fix the bugs. Let's hope that with the new CodeGear
that will change to the better. Posts from Nick certainly give that
impression, so I agree with Roddy; lets wait till Highlander hits the street
and reserve your judgement til then.