| 1 |
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 08:04:11 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Currently, a problem is that everybody uses different formatting |
| 7 |
> > for stabilization bug reports making them more difficult to be |
| 8 |
> > parsed. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> For clarity, are we talking about parsing by a human brain, or parsing |
| 12 |
> by a computer program? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Both. If the Summary is structured properly, YOU can parse a list of |
| 15 |
Summaries quicker[1] and a MACHINE can parse it more reliably. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> If the latter, would it make more sense to just break things out into |
| 18 |
> fields, instead of carefully building a structured text field which we |
| 19 |
> then have to carefully break back down? We might as well start |
| 20 |
> sticking xml in the summary. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Now you're breaking the human interface with XML. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> If we're talking about human parsing, can you give an example of how |
| 25 |
> variation makes your life more difficult today? I'm just trying to |
| 26 |
> understand what we're trying to fix... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Reading through hundreds of Summaries. If the atoms and the request |
| 29 |
variant are always in the same place, parsing by humans is MUCH quicker. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Why do I feel I keep pointing out the obvious (for around ten years |
| 32 |
already)? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Kind regards, |
| 36 |
jer |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
[1] Especially when it doesn't contain fluff like "please" or the |
| 40 |
umpteenth variant on "stable". |
Archives