Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ...

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 32992
interpreted = N
texte = >> >> I identified a significant bug in the version 4 beta on June 6, 2000 >> >> --the day before SM released it to the general public. I tried >> >> reporting this bug to SM directly via email, but they failed to >> >> respond to my email message as requested. The next day, they released >> >> version 4 to the public, bug and all. This bug causes syntactically >> >> correct webcat 2.x and 3.x templates to fail when certain contexts >> >> are nested. >> > >> >I cannot find any evidence that you reported any bug on June 6, either >> >on the Beta list or this one. Put up or shut up... >> >> My quote above *specifically* says I reported this issue to SM >> directly via email. Since I never reported this on either talk >> list, and in fact I never claimed to have reported this on the talk >> lists, it seems like it is your false assumption that is causing you >> to look for evidence where it clearly does not exist. > >And you are keeping the contents of you e-mail secret. What an asshole! Thanks for your opinion, but maybe it would be more productive to direct your anger towards SM instead of me. I am simply the messenger here ... if you want resolution, go to the source.SM is 100% responsible for this bug, not me. SM created this bug in themselves, and SM is responsible for ignoring my email message and releasing this bug to the general public -- instead of squashing it first.Now that I see how little value they place on my bug discoveries, I feel it is time for me to re-evaluate my bug-finding efforts. After all, if they continue to ignore me as they have been, then why should I bother? ================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Bob Sneidar 2000)
  2. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (John Butler 2000)
  3. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Glenn Busbin 2000)
  4. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  5. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Michael Winston 2000)
  6. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  7. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (John Peacock 2000)
  8. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  9. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (John Peacock 2000)
  10. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Dale LaFountain 2000)
  11. 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  12. Re: 06/06/2000 bug warning ... (Paul Uttermohlen 2000)
>> >> I identified a significant bug in the version 4 beta on June 6, 2000 >> >> --the day before SM released it to the general public. I tried >> >> reporting this bug to SM directly via email, but they failed to >> >> respond to my email message as requested. The next day, they released >> >> version 4 to the public, bug and all. This bug causes syntactically >> >> correct webcat 2.x and 3.x templates to fail when certain contexts >> >> are nested. >> > >> >I cannot find any evidence that you reported any bug on June 6, either >> >on the Beta list or this one. Put up or shut up... >> >> My quote above *specifically* says I reported this issue to SM >> directly via email. Since I never reported this on either talk >> list, and in fact I never claimed to have reported this on the talk >> lists, it seems like it is your false assumption that is causing you >> to look for evidence where it clearly does not exist. > >And you are keeping the contents of you e-mail secret. What an asshole! Thanks for your opinion, but maybe it would be more productive to direct your anger towards SM instead of me. I am simply the messenger here ... if you want resolution, go to the source.SM is 100% responsible for this bug, not me. SM created this bug in themselves, and SM is responsible for ignoring my email message and releasing this bug to the general public -- instead of squashing it first.Now that I see how little value they place on my bug discoveries, I feel it is time for me to re-evaluate my bug-finding efforts. After all, if they continue to ignore me as they have been, then why should I bother? ================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/ Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Calculating multiple shipping... (1997) [shownext] and sort (1998) Nested tags count question (1997) WebCat2b13MacPlugIn - [include] doesn't allow creator (1997) [REPLACE] inside [FOUNDITEMS] (1998) Updating a database once per day - An example (1998) 2.1.1 bug (ORDERFILE/SHOWIF/LINEITEMS) (1998) Netscape v. IE (1997) (thx) automating a POST (2002) WC1.6 to WC2 date formatting -FIXED! (1997) [cart] how is it generated (2002) WebCat B13 Mac CGI -- Frames question (1997) Date Time Oddness (1999) This [search] worked before update to 4.5.1 (2003) Shopping problems with 2.1b3 acgi (1997) searching more then one (1999) More on the email templates (1997) item sorting (1997) Re:Can this be done? (1997) WebCat/CyberStudio Compatibility (1998)