| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It doesn't hurt to have a recommendation, and personally I really appreciate |
| 4 |
> when people (yes, that includes developers and wranglers ;-) update the line |
| 5 |
> to be more informative. There already is a recommendation on the wiki, part |
| 6 |
> of the Bug Wranglers project [1]. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Sure, beautiful bug reports are nice, but if people are suffering |
| 10 |
burnout over editing the line it this doesn't seem like the biggest |
| 11 |
value-add to me. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
By all means have a standard. But, don't discourage but reporters by |
| 14 |
asking them to rework reports if they don't conform, and don't |
| 15 |
discourage maintainers or bug wranglers by yelling at them if they |
| 16 |
don't clean these up. People can of course can still make things as |
| 17 |
pretty as they want to. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The only reason I could see for rigid adherence to a standard is if |
| 20 |
we're using the field as input to some kind of program, and if we're |
| 21 |
doing that then the data should really be broken down into appropriate |
| 22 |
fields like atom, desc, etc. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So, have a best practice, but let's not get carried away with this |
| 25 |
sort of thing to the point where people feel like it is getting in the |
| 26 |
way. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives