﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <description><![CDATA[Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></description>
    <title><![CDATA[Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
    <link>http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589</link>
    <!-- source: http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed-->
    <dc:date>2008-05-16T23:18:49-07:00</dc:date>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[Update this document - moved majority of documentation to the bottom, and removed RAID references so the list on the left reflects the Quality Central reference number.]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Chris Pattinson)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40256</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-14T17:30:19-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-14T17:30:19-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[Ok Joe, I've reopened RAID 247913 so we can retest and investigate.Thanks for the report on fixes, I've updated QC for 42969 and 42350.I'll see what I can do about updating the Doc. First was going to see if we can publish more of our internal fixes.]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[re: D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Chris Pattinson)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40245</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-12T17:40:53-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-12T17:40:53-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[gosh ,,, What a  crap (sorry my language) , but get soooo tired of borland/CodeGear .... who in the world need this documentaton fixed compared to major problems in IDE etc. etc.  . If codeGear haven't realized ,,, Since we went from D7 ,, we stopped using helpsystem. They really lack of reality. Have they ever tried their own product or ??]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Kim Pedersen)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40199</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-08T03:29:29-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-08T03:29:29-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[Raid 247913 (QC# 41681) is not fixed. Forms are still left splattered on the desktop after a minimize on XP. Also, QC#'s 42969 &amp; 42350 were fixed in Update 1. Also, I would really like to not have to view the documentation fixes. As much as I complain about the help, I almost never refer to it.]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Joe Szendre)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40197</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-07T20:43:52-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-07T20:43:52-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[I expect some of the reports you can't see are still private, since the release hasn't gone live and we haven't published yet.Not trying to fool anyone - it's just a list of QC reports from the community. It included help fixes, I don't mind calling those out seperately. The fix to searching and filtering IS quite dramatic, any topics in our help bubble up to the top of the search now, and we fixed a lot of missing content in this update, not entirely reflected in this list of QC (there were 200 more internal reports we fixed). For folks totally blocked or really upset about some bug that is just ruining their development/product use experience - send me an email (cpattinson @ codegear.com). The field testers provided a number of 'Top Ten' lists which the team can work against, and we can always review other submissions to add or bump up on these lists. ]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Chris Pattinson)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40184</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-05T17:10:25-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-05T17:10:25-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[Which is even stranger since you commented on it ;-)As David says though, a sysop doesn't automatically get to see all private reports.]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[re: D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Jeremy North)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40183</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-05T15:56:19-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-05T15:56:19-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[Field test reports require an extra level of authentication. You have to be a sysop level 3 (IIRC) or have been a participant in the field test. I think it would be wise to have all sysops on the field tests, so I'll try to remember to make sure sysops are invited next time around.]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[re: D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (David Dean (CodeGear))
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40181</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-05T13:02:36-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-05T13:02:36-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[Actually It strikes me as being honest.   They list what they fixed, nothing more nothing less.  It stikes me as funny when...In one statement you complain about having the list padded with help file fixes.  In the second you complain that they did not do enough to the help file.   ]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[re: D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Robert Love)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40180</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-05T07:13:27-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-05T07:13:27-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[What, you don't find this list disappointing?  Just hit the QC site and look at how many bugs ARE listed as open.  I've said a number of good things about D2007, but let's be honest.  THe help file is a freaking train wreck.  Editing a few entries isn't even going to scratch the surface of what is wrong there.  Using it to pad out the list of actual PRODUCT bugs doesn't strike you as slightly dishonest?  Considering that you could easily fix THOUSANDS of help file bugs and still make no noticable impact on the quality of the help files - and that isn't just my opinion, even the Codegear staff admits that its an embarresment.  Heck, it is why they hired people to work on it - in 2 or 3 months of solid editing, I would have expected a LOT more progress in that area, wouldn't you?As for one bug?  Maybe you haven't notice yet, but the project manager is full of problems - most of them minor annoyances that you can work around.  D2007 is FULL of problems like this - problems that would, at first blush, appear to be fairly quick and dirty fixes for obvious oversights that could EASILY have been fixed by now.If you don't know what I am talking about, I suggest that you fire up a copy of D7 for about a week and compare behaviour of things like the editor, properties editor, project manager.All in all, yes, D2007 IS a significant step up from D2006, and it isn't plagued by the slowdown of 2006 and 2005, and its got enough productivity enhancements that it makes the move from D7 worth the pain of having to continually approach the IDE sideway to get things done, but it doesn't need to be that way.We could have had our cake and compile it too - heck, if they get serious about the minor, annoying crud, we still could.And besides, they need to clean it up for the next full suite release anyways.  No time like the present.]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[re: D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (C Johnson)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40179</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-05T05:34:15-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-05T05:34:15-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[That's weird: as a Sysop I should be able to read reports even those marked as private, but I can't get to #32154 either. Either it's a typo, or it requires an higher Sysop level...]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[re: D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Fernando Madruga)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=40178</guid>
      <dc:date>2007-06-05T05:09:39-07:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2007-06-05T05:09:39-07:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://dn.codegear.com/article/36589/feed">Comments for D2007 Update 1 - List of QC reports</source>
    </item>
    <generator>Atom 1.0 XSLT Transform v1 (http://atom.geekhood.net)</generator>
  </channel>
</rss>