On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Jolyon Smith <jsm...@deltics.co.nz> wrote: > Yep, I forget the item #'s and don't have time to look them up right now, > but there was a suggestion w.r.t ASSERT() syntax highlighting that is > indicated as resolved/fixed/whatever. It isn't.
This got the infamous "Inactive" resolution. Basically that means we looked at it and don't really want to have it come up on our list as either Open or Reported. It is pretty lame but it was really a "Quick Fix" measure to pump up the QC figures - in my opinion. However a comment does say that since report 20628 was closed as "won't do" i wouldn't be holding your breath for your report (20639) Report No: 20628 (RAID: 234497) Status: Closed Suggestion: True, False, and Self should be highlighted as keywords http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=20628 > There was another which is a bug caused by qualifying class names in a form > declaration or naming a form with the same name as a component class on that > form. > > e.g. File New VCL Application, rename form as MainMenu (yielding a form > class name of TMainMenu) then drop a TMainMenu component on it. > > The original problem as reported at the time no longer occurs but the IDE > remains broken in a new way in this scenario (hence my allowance that we > should be generous and allow for things having been re-broken in new ways, > and/or not adequately re-tested). I noticed that one. Luckily it won't ever effect me but I could see it being annoying the first time you were trying to figure out what was going on. > > -----Original Message----- > From: delphi-boun...@delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-boun...@delphi.org.nz] On > Behalf Of Jeremy North > Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2010 16:30 > To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List > Subject: Re: [DUG] XE Upgrade > > I had a look at your items. A couple of items are suggestions for new > directives/reserved words. These decisions are not taken lightly. > Especially prior to the new back end compiler. > > A lot of these were made during the time Danny was looking after the > compiler, it is no secret he wasn't a fan of adding new reserved > words/directives. Just look at the namespace debacle. > > I think this one has been addressed, there is a TopForm boolean > parameter now. Been there for a while as well I believe. > > Report No: 2392 Status: Reported > Implementation of GetParentForm (Forms unit) is erroneous/incomplete > http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=2392 > > >>> Which raises the question of what a “fixed/closed QC entry” actually > means, > > There should also be a "Resolution" assigned to the report. This will > give more information. A "Fixed" bug should state the version it was > fixed in. A closed bug will state a reason for closure. Such as "Can't > Reproduce" or "Won't do" etc etc. > > The internal system generally has more information regarding the > reason, but rarely is that transferred to the QC item. I reported this > which is open but personally I don't see it being addressed. > > Report No: 20307 Status: Open > When a report has its status pulled from RAID, a comment about the > final status should be mandatory > http://qc.embarcadero.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=20307 > > > > I've got over 180 open/reported reports out of over 400. You aren't > the only one not seeing action on qc reports. > > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jolyon Smith <jsm...@deltics.co.nz> wrote: >> Some had certainly not been addressed as of Delphi 2010. These are > unlikely >> to have been addressed in XE either since their status already suggests > that >> they are considered fixed (or in the case of suggestions/enhancements, >> implemented) when they are not. >> >> >> >> Which raises the question of what a “fixed/closed QC entry” actually > means, >> if things can be fixed/closed with nothing actually having been done (or, >> let’s be generous, whatever has been done subsequently undone or at least >> not properly tested). >> >> >> >> >> >> From: delphi-boun...@delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-boun...@delphi.org.nz] > On >> Behalf Of Colin Johnsun >> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2010 15:49 >> >> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List >> Subject: Re: [DUG] XE Upgrade >> >> >> >> Hi Jolyon, >> >> >> >> On 31 August 2010 13:12, Jolyon Smith <jsm...@deltics.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >> >> I might be more impressed if they had actually fixed some of the bugs I >> myself reported that have languished in QC for 8+ years (and had not >> introduced new ones related to those in the meantime). >> >> >> >> >> >> Just curious, did they ever get around to fixing those reported bugs this >> time round. From my understanding of the history of Delphi, during that > time >> (8 years ago) Borland really turned its back on Delphi in its push to get >> away from its dev tool roots. But in the last year or two EMBT had made a >> big effort to address those concerns and really tackle a lot of those > cases >> in QC. Did they deliver? >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Colin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list >> Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz >> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi >> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: >> unsubscribe >> > > _______________________________________________ > NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list > Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz > Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi > Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: > unsubscribe > > > _______________________________________________ > NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list > Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz > Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi > Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: > unsubscribe > _______________________________________________ NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: unsubscribe
