Makes you wonder what "stable" really means.

I guess that's one way to get folks to upgrade: leave prior versions unusable and assuming VFP 8 gets "fixed" ... or maybe VFP 9 ... or not.

And I don't see "overwork" being the problem here; this is just sloppy.

We're not exactly talking about some subtle "side effect" here ... the expected result was never accomplished.

Sort of shoots down the whole argument of why we can't have important fixes issued more frequently ("It takes too long to test"): Testing is inadequate to start with.

>>To me this is a very serious issue/bug.
>
>Makes you wonder what a "Last Reviewed" date really means!?!? In this case it shows "5/12/2003" (6 days ago) yet VFP7 and VFP8 are NOT shown as being affected!@#!$@#
>
>I understand that the VFP Team is overworked but it would be nice of them to let us know if they've decided to let the KB BUGS just mature without change.