>>"Good for you - but it's not how everyone operates. If you haven't broken your strict procedures because they don't account for unforseen circumstances (ie, bugs & design problems) because you're such a brilliant developer, then I have one thing to say: Please work for me!"
This just reinforces my point that you don't have familiarity with projects like this. I didn't have the power to break procedures. If I made a change to a library that library goes through its testing again. If it passed that, it went into general build and was admitted to the wider testing procedure. We had an entire testing team in a different building who did nothing all day but work through the documented testing procedures. If there were a critical incident report that required higher-priority, then the procedures accounted for that and things would be held back so that this could go out - nothing didn't go through testing. The key point is - as I already explained - things would have to be held back because of it. What you're arguing is that it is okay to hold back all these other things to fix this one thing, you just don't understand that this is what you're arguing. And neither you nor the rest of us are in a position to say whether this bug is important enough to hold back other things for.
As to "design problems", the specifications team was again, a different team to the programmers. We didn't get part way through something and then realize we actually wanted something else - we were coding to very tight requirements. You're just emphasizing again that you haven't worked on this sort of project.
>>"Yes you did. You name called people who suggested "it's not complex" or "90 days is plenty of time" - so, unless you're also an "armchair developer", you must therefore think that it is complex, and 90 days isn't enough time."
I have indeed called people armchair developers. However, you claimed that I was saying that Microsoft "have hence ignored the report with the hope it would go away" which is not the case. Also, I haven't said that 90 days isn't enough time. I've said that it might be, might not be and that in any case a fixed deadline like that clearly is going to be enough some of the time and not the rest of the time. What I actually wrote is that people here don't know. If you can't distinguish between someone saying something is unknown and saying something isn't the case, then no wonder you're commiting logical fallacies all over the place.
>>"You know they're factual, and I only said it was already posted so I didn't need to type it again."
Saying that people with no familiarity with the code base or procedures are right when they assert that an arbitrary time period is "enough", doesn't carry any weight. Not even if you say it twice.
>>"You can't discount something just because it was mentioned on here; it doesn't mean it's untrue - otherwise, what you've just said would also be untrue."
I'm realizing that you are rather limited. Saying that something isn't true just because someone claims it online, is not the same thing as saying something must therefore be untrue because it was said online. Your logic is shoddy and biased.