wie hier diskutiert und festgestellt:
No, you won’t be getting any updated reports on the progress on this. We simple don’t do that. When a feature or fix on an issue is ready it is just released.
hmm und wie lange dauert das wohl?
sehr kundenorientiert ![]()
Likely only a few hours after they find the fix for the problem.
Man kann nicht vorhersagen, wohin das Boot fahren wird.
The bug in FamilySearch download/import of a branch appears to extend back even to RM7. I inspected 13 files submitted to me for other problems that were from RM7 or earlier:
9 of 13 have instances of duplicate couples, ranging from 1 to 188. All of these files have records in LinkTable and, therefore, have had some interaction with FamilySearch as that is all that that table has ever been used for.
Only 1 of the remaining 4 with no instances of duplicate couples has a non-empty LinkTable.
While this shows a correlation between FamilySearch interaction and resultant duplicate couples, it is by no means conclusive. We cannot test RM7 with FamilySearch any longer so that’s all we have to go on, other than it is highly unlikely that the developers would have changed the algorithm for tree-building from FamilySearch download/import between RM7 and later versions. And duplicate couple creation is not exclusively caused by FS download/import; it may be caused by user error, merging, …
If someone has a RM7 database created from a RM7 FamilySearch download of many generations (hopefully to have a couple in it that are related), checking it for duplicate couples would help substantiate the assertion that the bug spans multiple generations of RootsMagic, extending back as far as the first release of RM’s FamilySearch download/import capability (RM6.1 June 2013?).
Given the potential of duplicate couples/duplicate parents having been created in many user databases over the past 13 years through FS interaction and by other causes over an even longer period, it seems to me that RM should have additional tools added to identify and correct the problems.
einen Fehler zu verleugnen wird das Problem nicht beheben ![]()
Ich hoffe, dass der Fehler nun schnell behoben wird