I agree. I just don't understand Michel's reasoning for not putting it here on the UT. Who runs the UT... MS or Michel :-)?

>I would find such a list useful. I think there are several factors at play here:
>
>- As you pointed out, it can take some time for a reported bug to turn up in the MSKB
>- If someone reports a bug to MS through their reporting channels, they get zero feedback on whether it was confirmed, is there a workaround, will it be fixed, or even if it was received. At least, if a bug is reported here (either in a regular thread or through a new "Bug List") it can't vanish.
>- If MS is not going to release a service pack this information becomes even more valuable.
>
>I'd suggest that any reported bug be subject to the same reporting quality as MS uses to report its bugs - code samples that can reproduce it 100% of the time, preferably on multiple different machines so it's not just an artifact of someone's flaky video card, etc.
>
>I think Michel has an opportunity here to help the community and get a little more traffic to this site.
>
>If he doesn't want to do it, the Wiki would be a fine alternative. Although the interface might not be as slick, I envisage a "VFPx Build xxxx Master Bug List" page, with nothing but links to other pages, which outline individual bugs in detail. I think the UT could put a nice interface on something like this but again, the Wiki could work well if Michel doesn't want to do it.