1 |
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
2 |
>> so you're not really solving any problem by just changing a |
3 |
>> label. Some people will only ever be happy if they get the FIXED |
4 |
>> label on their reports. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I'm not sure that's so. There are certainly many who don't like |
7 |
> their reports marked INVALID, at least initially. I know I've seen many |
8 |
> instances where the word INVALID has got peoples hackles up, yet after |
9 |
> it's explained that it doesn't imply they shouldn't have raised the |
10 |
> report in the first place, they're ok (I've explained to people before |
11 |
> that the INVALID marking just indicates that there's no change required |
12 |
> to the tree). This is the same issue I have with "NOTABUG" - it's like |
13 |
> saying, "you're wrong, shouldn't have raised the report", just perhaps |
14 |
> not as in-your-face as INVALID. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> Still, it looks like I'm being out-gunned on this one, and I'm |
18 |
> starting to repeat myself, so I'll be quiet for a bit... |
19 |
> |
20 |
Well from experience of the forums, there are indeed users who have felt |
21 |
bruised by their experience of bugzilla. I'm not sure if changing this flag |
22 |
is the right solution. It's a bit of a leap in terms of user-friendliness |
23 |
to go from the forums where everyone is supportive (or gets pulled up |
24 |
unless it's OTW) to bugzilla where wranglers are trying to deal with a |
25 |
flood of bugs and don't have the time to be diplomatic. And the standard |
26 |
advice is to interact with bugzilla to contribute, so you get enthusiastic |
27 |
beginners making the leap, only to annoy the busiest devs. It doesn't make |
28 |
for a sensible learning curve imo, and leads to a lot of confusion. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |