Re: Another IDS Feature Request

"Donny" <thisisbackwards_PSynnoD@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:drcr7h$nqq$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk... > In response to all this chatter about new features: How about the development > team actually get on and fix all the outstanding (customer raised) bugs? > > As a developer myself I understand that green-field development is always more > interesting than bug fixing, but surely satisfying current customers should be a > priority over adding "wouldn't it be nice" features to try and entice new > customers to a (supposedly dying) product. > > To have no movement on 12 bugs in almost two years is extremely frustrating! > > Regards, > Donny > > (Still waiting for: 164051, 164052, 164053, 165994, 165995, 166894, 168482, > 168483, 171075, 171076, 171080, 171079.) I just looked at these. These are not bugs but for the most part are requesting a change in existing documented behaviour, mainly within the VTI and VII components. As such, they are features. Also there is no customer case associated with these PTS entries. Please open a case on these issues and have the case attached to the PTS entries. Please also describe in the case why these changes are needed (Business Case Requirements). Based on nature of the PTS entries, I suspect that I know why you need these changes and what it is that you're hoping to accomplish. Do you have an IBM contact that you are working with? Thx M.P.

Madison Pruet wrote: > I just looked at these. These are not bugs but for the most part are > requesting a change in existing documented behaviour, mainly within the VTI > and VII components. As such, they are features. My apologies. _Three_ of the twelve are feature requests. DonnySP