The problem is that there's a sliding tradeoff of effort they put into filing those bugs and how likely it is to {benefit them, get them fixed}. Without any co

The problem is that there's a sliding tradeoff of effort they put into filing those bugs and how likely it is to {benefit them, get them fixed}. Without any communication with the developers of MSBuild, every additional bug they filed might turn out to be a timesink for a good writeup only to get a "WONTFIX" equivalent, while having only submitted a bug report with a link to their breakdown (which they needed to write anyway for this to benefit them much) is the minimum required to be able to say "we warned them" if one of these bugs turns out to break something critically later. So yes, they probably should have written a couple of the unambiguously wrong code bugs up and submitted them with a citation of their full writeup, but their goal, cynically, is to drive usage of their product, not necessarily to get the bugs fixed. (e: plus, at that point, you could reasonably argue they should submit PRs with the trivial code fixes, and then you get into discussions of possibly having to sign a CLA and all sorts of mess that they probably don't want.)