| 1 |
On czw, 2017-03-30 at 21:50 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/30/2017 09:40 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:59 -0400 |
| 4 |
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > > It may even be possible to force this pragmatically. Require a comment with |
| 7 |
> > > any status/keyword change via code. Form submit validation requirement. That |
| 8 |
> > > way no one can get around it. It also does not require further enforcement, |
| 9 |
> > > social or otherwise :) |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Or, as a hybrid between that suggestion and my other "packaged response", perhaps |
| 12 |
> > pre-fill the comment section with a templated response for various resolution types. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > That way it discourages using the wrong resolution, by way of forcing you to either |
| 15 |
> > say the template, or delete the templated answer and provide your own. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Eh, but I see potential implementation fun there. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to argue a template text is |
| 21 |
> redundant information given the statuses are already defined one click |
| 22 |
> away. Maybe people should read them a bit more often, which itself can |
| 23 |
> be a documentation issue... but still.. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You are wrongly assuming that Gentoo developers are going to read |
| 27 |
documentation and follow it, rather than reinventing the existing status |
| 28 |
to their own purposes. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Michał Górny |
Archives