| 1 |
On 03/30/2017 09:40 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:59 -0400 |
| 3 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> It may even be possible to force this pragmatically. Require a comment with |
| 6 |
>> any status/keyword change via code. Form submit validation requirement. That |
| 7 |
>> way no one can get around it. It also does not require further enforcement, |
| 8 |
>> social or otherwise :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Or, as a hybrid between that suggestion and my other "packaged response", perhaps |
| 11 |
> pre-fill the comment section with a templated response for various resolution types. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That way it discourages using the wrong resolution, by way of forcing you to either |
| 14 |
> say the template, or delete the templated answer and provide your own. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Eh, but I see potential implementation fun there. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to argue a template text is |
| 20 |
redundant information given the statuses are already defined one click |
| 21 |
away. Maybe people should read them a bit more often, which itself can |
| 22 |
be a documentation issue... but still.. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 26 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 27 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives