ABX wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:44:42 +0200, Arne Kleinophorst
> <kle### [at] spamdebitelnet> wrote:
> 
>>But if you would have read on you would have noticed that the 
>>alternative version is also not faster. And i just don't see why a 
>>feature which apparently has not changed is sooo much slower now.
> 
> 
> The feature is only part of whole package. MegaPOV 1.0 was based on POV-Ray
> 3.5, MegaPOV 1.1 beta is based on POV-Ray 3.6.1. That was many times mentioned
> that 3.5 and 3.6 differs a lot but internally: various C++ support,
> frontend/backend architecture, new compilers, various bugfixes. That's
> possible that in case of Windows port some of internal changes affected Cloth
> patch as well in the way we failed to notice. We are working hard on MegaPOV
> 1.1 final relase and we are open to your observations and suggestions once the
> new binaries and sources are released.
> 
> 
>>I thought i provided some kind of bug report...
> 
> 
> I would call it an 'impression' :-)
> 
> ABX
Perhaps there could be a more public treatment on these groups of what 
is correct bug reporting.  I worked as a programmer, and in quality 
assurance, for fifteen years, in very large, and fairly well-organized, 
IT shops, yet I have little idea what you guys mean by "bug report"  To 
be quite honest it seems like it is a term hurled at posters to impune 
their abilities, or qualifications, in some none specific way.  I 
understand that you might want to extract a certain formality from bug 
reporters to establish their good faith, and make the report useful. 
But also, that this might be balanced against a need to collect evidence 
of faulty behavior.  But maybe not.  Could we use the ng to promote more 
awareness of all sides of this problem?

-Jim

Post a reply to this message