Adq
Ok, it is your point of view, but I can't see any practical difference. For me both poor designs and bugs absolutely must be fixed.

Regardless It still isn't a bug it's poor design and requires an enhancement to fix it. I totally agree with your statement that poor designs and bugs must be fixed.

Adq
But if developers take your point of view it leads to situation when they think: "Oh, it is a bug, we need to fix it. Oh, but it is just poor design, let's leave it as is, it is normal".

Typical software company example..

All developers and QA categorise issues similar to this:
New feature.
Enhancement.
Bug.

Once that happens they then assign a priority to it. Eg showstopper, high, low.

Some assign an impact attribute to it (eg the percentage of people they think would be effected).
e.g. High risk, low risk.

Some reports will get discarded as duplicate or cannot repro.

How they process this information is another matter. Often they hold triage meeting and debate if the the info they've received is accurate. No idea how cakewalk operates here that's their business.. But maybe something similar to this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_methodology

Remember a software company could have thousands of issues logged in their database. When you are dealing in these numbers you are going to be very strict when it comes to priotising. They need to make best use of their time.

Of course if an issue does not end up in the database it's in no mans land..

Cheers.

Ok, but here as users we have only two options: feature request and problem report. And in such not critical case the only difference is that with problem report you will wait forever for it to be reviewed, and with feature request it will never happen at all.

Well that's your perception. My perception is that there are loads of feature requests being piled in one after the other, whilst there are still a backlog of bugs needing to be fixed.

I don't see any issue myself IF there is a very poor design issue logging it in problem reports form AND putting it in the feature requests forum.

If it's a 'nice to have' it clearly belongs straight into the FR forums. If it's a bug should be logged problem report.

BTW I have loads of issues I have logged in problem reports that haven't been looked at or fixed yet. Not complaining though (well not today).

Adq
 If you press Automation Write Enable, it works for all selected tracks, and Automation Read Enable only for one. 
 
User is supposed to remember what options in what sub-menu work for all selected tracks, and what for only one. It is unacceptable. All right-click options should work for all selected tracks (if it have sense), that is how it works by standard in software design. Current situation reduce usability significantly.

To me, it is an oversight. While not technically a "bug", I seriously do not think the bakers "intended" this behavior. Any GUI in any software should be consistent in it's behavior. If a right click on one button acts differently there should be a valid intuitive reason why. Otherwise it should be fixed.