RE: apologies

Subject: RE: apologies
From: John Posada <JPosada -at- book -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 13:38:47 -0400

I think that it passed those criteria is an assumption that was not stated
in the original post, unless I missed it. I got the impression that it went
out as a poor build. OTOH, I'm up to my **** in content right now and only
skimming many of the messages.


-----Original Message-----
From: DaLy [mailto:swiggles247 -at- yahoo -dot- com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:20 PM
To: John Posada; TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: apologies


If the build PASSED the Build Acceptance tests, the
Quality Assurance tests and the Beta tests, then were
those missing files really essential? The lack of
these files did not break the product, did it?

It seems to me that this company has more important
things to worry about (i.e. the incompetent QA and
Engineering departments). If the word "enhancement"
bothers you, call it a bug fix.


--- John Posada <JPosada -at- book -dot- com> wrote:
> If I'm told that a version is enhanced, I might ask
> what new enhancements were added.
> "Uhmmm...we enhanced it with some files that were
> missed in the last build that will now allow it to


Order RoboHelp X3 in May and receive a $100 mail-in rebate, PLUS
free RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module.

Order RoboHelp today:

ATTENTION FrameMaker Users: Fill-out the following survey
to receive a chance to win a FREE RoboScreenCapture.

FM users only please:

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Previous by Author: selection statement in the doc
Next by Author: Bulk import of Word files into FM7
Previous by Thread: RE: apologies
Next by Thread: Re: apologies

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads