Great, Randy, I see some BIG potential here!!!!

I can understand that #4 presents a problem given the current content of your files, but it would be a one-time effort that would have very big impact FOR THE COMMUNITY. Of course the "states" I list there might need further refinement, but I think they represent KEY information.

As for item #5, I will try to get Michel's attention by pointing him to this thread and reminding him of my existing UT Task Tracker item (#25 yesterday).
I think that an essential factor for item #5 is to get as wide a "vote" as possible so that the truer measure of the impact can be gauged. This may not be so easy for the wishes recorded to date but should certainly be attainable for any future UT wishes.

Thanks for this, and I sure hope that things do move along on this issue.

Jim


>Yes, this is very helpful. Currently, we capture the UT ERs directly into a format that matches ours and do retain UT specific information such as #2 below. We will look into making part of our database available (possibly via a web service). I am not sure if #4 is possible since we don't mark ERs in this fashion so would require extensive work to update every ER currently there.
>
>I do like the idea of #5. The information in #5 would be valuable to the team when evaluating ERs. I would recommend working with Michel on this to have him update the UT's wishlist to include a new field for this. Our import mechanism will automatically update our Foxwish database will existing records that have changed since last import (we have last updated field).
>
>Thanks...Randy
>
>>Randy,
>>
>>To answer your question (first sentence) laconically: some!
>>
>>Here are some things that I believe would be of significant interest to the VFP community at large: (note that I have a UT Wish (in UT task tracker) - #25 at present - that gives a picture of an even better facility)
>>
>>1. Make the MS list available for review by the VFP community.
>>2. When they are sourced from the UT, include the UT "ID number" in the item description.
>>3. Let that list show items considered to be duplicates of each other.
>>4. Indicate in that list items that are:
>>---a) Deemed to be inadequately defined to be implementable;
>>---b) Deemed to be "superceded" by alternate or better features (now) in VFP;
>>---c) Deemed to be outside the scope of VFP's intended future;
>>---d) Still in the game but with zero commitment to implement.
>>5. Let the community indicate its degree of support (or not) for any item that is "still in the game". A scale of 1-x or a selectable listbox, aggregating/averaging/counting the "votes" for each item and showing the current 'standing' for each item in the list.
>>
>>Many of the wishes currently in the UT list are ill-described or could be interpreted in a few different ways. It would be relevant to the submitters of those wishes for them to know that their wish fell into a) above. Similar for b) above. I would expect to see very few in category c) above, but I'm sure there must be some.
>>
>>The essence here is to give both the VFP Team and the community a chance to maximize the effectiveness of both the wish facility and the future versions of VFP.
>>
>>I hope that this is helpful to you.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>>>> As is the issue of VFP Wish list feedback.
>>>
>>>Jim, what is the issue with the Wish List feedback that you would like to see improved? Michel and I are working to ensure that ERs entered into the UT's Fox wishlist database are updated to ours on a regular basis. This has worked well and gave us some great ideas for Toledo. Unfortunately, we cannot just come out and disclose what features we have selected to add to Toledo until we ship or make public announcements. As for ERs that don't make it into Toledo, we save them all for reconsideration with the next version.
>>>
>>>Randy