No more a lot of bugs...

[sinus]

... I feel, that in the last weeks, there are not more a lot of bug-reports, is it possible?

If yes, I can see the end of the tunnel... 

[dcb]

Looks that way. IMatch has come a long way since the first public beta. Sadly the latest version is a step backwards for me and I've had to go back to the version prior.

IMatch 5 does everything out of the box that I had cobbled together myself in IMatch 3.6 and much much more. There is no other photo management software that is as powerful, capable and flexible.

[Mario]

Sadly the latest version is a step backwards for me and I've had to go back to the version prior.

You refer to what, exactly? The pen problem reported by you?

I just good very positive feedback about the 152 from my local tester group, and I don't see many "Had to roll back to 150" messages here in the community.
Yesterday I have added, unified and fixed metadata in about 3000 of my own RAW files (NEF) without any problem with the 152 on a Windows 8.1 box. I would not say that the 152 is a step backward, frankly.

[joel23]

Sadly the latest version is a step backwards for me and I've had to go back to the version prior.

You refer to what, exactly? The pen problem reported by you?

Yes, and its sluggishness. As you know I rolled back as well because V152 is not useable for me.

I just good very positive feedback about the 152 from my local tester group, and I don't see many "Had to roll back to 150" messages here in the community.

Might be because settings are different, user behavior and methods, approaches and OS environments are different. This means nothing. I wonder how bet many beta-testers are still on V150, V148 or older...
But if you have a dozen paying users complaining about an unusable version or messed up files, you are in charge, not your local tester group... I got this problem on five different machines already and I guess I will have it on 10 other machines when I'd install it on them.
Since you integrated ExifTool as a the prominent helper-tool into IMatch, you can't point paying users to Phil or the ExifTool forum when there is a question or problem caused by Exiftool, as you sometimes do with us beta-testers.


Anyway. May I also remind you to the "EXIF Time Shift" bug? This IMHO is not at all a minor one and should be solved before you release IMatch (IMHO you can't sell IMatch with a clear conscience containing this bug), because in the worse it wrecks the dates of lots of files almost unrepairable just by two edits.
Guess "Susan" and "Emma" will not even notice messed up dates or believe they have even done something wrong. But "Mike" and the other guys might be pretty peeved when this bug happens to them.
(btw: seems real photographers are masculine )

And what about MWG compliance?! Bug? Glitch? Not yet? IMatch does not claim to be MWG compliant anymore?

[Mario]

If you refer to many, and very long bug reports you have written, these are still in the queue. Your reports are very long and deal with complicated matter. I had so far no chance to read them in detail or even try to reproduce them. I will do so in due time. The bug report list currently holds 50 entries. Are all of your several EXIF timestamp-related bug reports valid, or is there "one" I should look closer into? Because there seems to be a lot of overlap between these reports - I might be wrong because I cannot remember every detail right now.

[dcb]

Sadly the latest version is a step backwards for me and I've had to go back to the version prior.

You refer to what, exactly? The pen problem reported by you?

I just good very positive feedback about the 152 from my local tester group, and I don't see many "Had to roll back to 150" messages here in the community.
Yesterday I have added, unified and fixed metadata in about 3000 of my own RAW files (NEF) without any problem with the 152 on a Windows 8.1 box. I would not say that the 152 is a step backward, frankly.

Sorry Mario. This was not meant to be a criticism of IMatch or the work you're doing on it. It sounds like you may have taken it that way. I'm glad that it's working for so many users.  That suggests the problems a couple of us are having are isolated to just a few.

[Mario]

That suggests the problems a couple of us are having are isolated to just a few.

That is not uncommon. But a bug is still a bug, whether it affects only five users or 500.

Naturally, bugs which affect 500 users are fixed first. I use a three level ranking internally "must fix", "will fix", "may not fix" and address bugs in that order. I often combine bug which come from the same "area" in IMatch into one bug fixing session, which is why I fix old bugs and new bugs simultaneously. And when I check on a bug report and I find the problem immediately, I'll fix it straight away to get it out of the list.

Metadata-related bugs, especially the ones which require feedback and discussion with other ET users or Phil can take a long time to fix. Although Phil is helpful and quick to respond, setting up machines, trying out things etc. is very time-consuming. This is why such bugs get a slightly lower prio, especially if they seem to affect only a few testers.

And, yes. Sometimes I may fee a bit cranky, especially after spending 12 hours trying to reproduce, track down and kill an obscure but nevertheless harmful problem in the database converter. A bug that can only reproduced once per conversion, and that for a database with 90,000 files. It always takes 20 minutes to get to the point where I can see the bug...but I found it last night so all is well.

[joel23]

If you refer to many, and very long bug reports you have written, these are still in the queue. Your reports are very long and deal with complicated matter. I had so far no chance to read them in detail or even try to reproduce them. I will do so in due time. The bug report list currently holds 50 entries. Are all of your several EXIF timestamp-related bug reports valid, or is there "one" I should look closer into? Because there seems to be a lot of overlap between these reports - I might be wrong because I cannot remember every detail right now.

I moved my reply your question to the Bug Reports.