I didn't know I had any thunder :-). Seriously, I was just trying to add a little weight to a process that was begun before by you and others.

I would like any member of the UT be able to submit a possible bug, or anomaly. When they submit the anamaly, they should indicate what version of FoxPro, including service pack, and which version of Windows that are using (including service pack). I imagine these code be dropdown lists on the form.

Also, some mechanism for the person submitting the anamoly to post the minimum amount of code to reproduce the error. I think that will make it easier for many of us to see if the anomaly can be recreated on our version of FoxPro/Windows.

After an anamoly is submitted, other users can vote yea or nay on the bug. We are probably going to need some mechanism to keep track of which versions of FoxPro/Windows the anamoly can be recreated on, and which it can't.

At sometime, the person who submitted the anomaly or perhaps Michel could delete the bug if enough the consensus is that it isn't really an anomaly.

>Not trying to "steal your thunder" ChrisM, but rather hoping to move the issue along some... < s >
>
>I have been reading the "VFP Bug List on the UT" (thread #791164) with great interest, this being one of my hot-buttons for a long time. It is gratifying to see that so many other people are also feeling similarly.
>
>But it also occurs to me, as I read the thread, that there may be different ideas floating around out there as to what really is required. And I think KenL's first response in that thread, message #791406, gives us an idea of what might be it's overall utility (which I'd say is not a lot at the MS end of things).
>So I thought I'd ask the question: What is our MINIMUM expectations from having such a list, member-maintained, here on UT.
>
>For instance, KenL's response indicates emphatically that MS would basically ignore any such list, meaning that it would still be necessary for the originator to send a (duplicate) request through formal MS channels. Is that acceptable?
>
>Similarly, it would take some time before the list held sufficient content (number of items) as to really be useful. Is that OK? Would people still be motivated to fill it and to use it?
>
>Also, reviewing the UT Task Tracker entry by George Tasker in early 2002 (I presume) titled "Bugs, Workarounds and Fixes KB" and comments by people to that item it seems apparent that the best scenario would be to first discuss the problem as a possible bug in a regular thread and once apparent that it is a bug the originator could complete an entry in the BUG List. Is that right/OK?
>
>Of course *I* feel that all that is perfectly acceptable (though integration with MS would be best) because I want/need a place I can go to to check on the prior existence of a bug and I need it to be reliable. I feel that what is described above would do it.
>
>So, assuming in the worst case that a BUG List on the UT would be available but only used by UT members for viewing, monitoring, commenting and obtaining workarounds to such potential bugs, would it still be useful enough to have?
>
>Comments?