Seeking confirmation of a bug...
ambassador at fourthworld.com
Sat May 18 14:51:52 EDT 2019
Curry Kenworthy wrote:
> > Testing in older versions is a nice-to-have.
> > Testing in the version the team is currently working on
> > is a must-have.
> Catchy, but potentially self-defeating. This will catch the most
> obvious bugs (and we already have that) but for regressions we need
> comparison, and that involves looking at more than one item. (Or a
> great memory.)
Two very different scenarios. What you describe is what I often see
Panos and others deliver in the course of resolving reports, identifying
the source of origin of a bug. As engine maintainers, that is indeed
But most of us are scripters, more responsible for our work that relies
on LiveCode than maintaining the LiveCode engine itself.
For us, if we encounter a bug all we need to do is to report it, along
with the steps needed to see it.
If we use an older version of LC, we would also have the additional step
of first running the recipe in the latest version to see if a fix has
already been delivered.
Reporters are not required to trace a bug through all versions to
determine if and when it became specifically a regression. That would
be an onerous requirement that would dramatically slow down reporting,
and for many it would be so cumbersome as to discourage reporting
The history of a bug can be helpful if you happen to know it, but is by
no means a requirement for using the bug DB.
> How can people report a bug if they never notice it? People see these
> things mainly when they are working between versions. That's the crux.
Not for me. I don't generally spend much time reporting bugs I don't
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
More information about the Use-livecode