| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:30:50 -0600 |
| 2 |
R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > 232 matches. http://tinyurl.com/pmrmx |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The vast majority of which have an explanation in the comment |
| 9 |
> directly preceding. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In which case it's a moment's effort to cut-n-paste the text into the |
| 12 |
reassignment/resolution comment. Hence solar's laziness accusation. |
| 13 |
I'd go further, and suggest that sometimes it's not just laziness (since |
| 14 |
cut-n-paste isn't any more effort than typing '.') but a deliberate |
| 15 |
action to avoid explaining oneself. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
When re-assigning, it is extremely useful for the new assignee to see |
| 18 |
some relevant text, as this is the first bit of text they may see. If |
| 19 |
you just re-assign with '.' then the new assignee has to browse the bug |
| 20 |
to decide how to prioritise etc - which means flipping from your email |
| 21 |
client to the web browser or whatever. All of this breaks up |
| 22 |
processing the stream of stuff coming from bugzilla, causing wasted |
| 23 |
time - all because someone was deliberately evasive about why they |
| 24 |
reassigned. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Similarly when resolving, just saying '.' means other interested parties |
| 27 |
have to browse the bug to check whether the resolution is valid or not |
| 28 |
- if there's a decent comment along with the resolution this becomes |
| 29 |
unnecessary in the majority of cases. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives