[DUG] XE Upgrade

[Jeremy North]

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 <jsmith at 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-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at 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 <jsmith at 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 at delphi.org.nz
> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject:
> unsubscribe
>