Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

I completely agree except I believe we would be better off if Rodney's rose tinted view of the state of things were actually accurate. Perhaps he can help make it so. Unfortunately, as most of us are well aware, the ugly yellow box shows up just like an unwelcome relative, when you most dont want to see it.

Your policy should apply to all of Rodney's exceptions.

I have had TAC cases result in a ddts being filed for which I had no access, even after repeated attempts/requests.

I have found, that often even if bugs are unveiwable, one can still enter them manually into a bug group and some of the time the bug "header" will show up, even if the details/descriptions are unavailable.

I actually do review all bugs for particular releases from time to time, takes a few hours, but still I find it quite valuable.

Often, the bug will be marked a dupe of another bug, which comes back as unavailable.

Minimizing the amounts of bugs that are unveiwable will go a long way to increasing confidence levels in the known state of software releases. It will also go a ways in increasing people's confidence in Cisco's commitment to fixing bugs. Odds are that most of us know of bugs that have gone unresolved for quite some time.

Additionaly, making the Bug Search tool actualy work to a degree will help eliminate TAC cases that result after a week of work in "Oh known defect....", as people increase their trust in it and turn to it first. (The open tac tool should search bugs also)

Joe