Yeah. I've only been a veteran of the process for 20 years - I don't know a thing about what I'm talking about.

"non-breaking" is a meaningless distinction. What you're REFERRING to is a "cosmetic" bug, and "cosmetic", depending on the software and the shop, does NOT mean "acceptable for release", and FURTHERMORE, this is not a new bug that's been filed as low priority or will-not-fix, but a REGRESSION because it DID work in the past, which means it's DOUBLE damning.

I'm not interested in waving around credentials about who knows more about software development - if you work in a shop that doesn't care about quality, that's between you and the shop. But if you want to claim that someone at Microsoft said "Yeah, it doesn't correctly reflect the filename, a critical check to ensure users don't accidentally delete the wrong file, which is something that's worked for 30 years" and then signed off on that, instead of the MUCH more likely explanation that NOBODY is looking at ANY of this crap with the detail they should be, I'm afraid I'm going to have to laugh.

To give you an idea, in the XBox division, a division of Microsoft, this would be considered a compliance failure that prevents a game from going gold for launch on the platform, and if caught would cost the developer thousands and weeks to fix before the game could go live because it would necessitate starting the final step of the certification process over again, because EVERY SINGLE TEST has to be run again to ensure JUST this kind of regression doesn't resurface.

But no - the same company would claim it's totally acceptable for the operating system that runs bank software because it's "non-breaking".