| 1 |
On 19 Jan 2009, at 20:36, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 2009-01-19, Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> I would favor the original (with Alan McKinnon's change). It is |
| 6 |
>> somewhat wordy but this issue has caused several users grief and the |
| 7 |
>> (admittedly repetitive) original wording makes it very clear what |
| 8 |
>> must |
| 9 |
>> be done and gives some idea of what caused the change. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Being somewhat repetitive was was intentional. It's sort of |
| 12 |
> like the redundant information in an error-correction code. It |
| 13 |
> reduces the liklyhood of being misunderstood - |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It's also more likely to get skipped over & to cause busy |
| 16 |
administrators' eyes to glaze over. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm all for being explicit, but verbosity for its own sake is not |
| 19 |
beneficial - with excessively long messages I often tend to find that |
| 20 |
I have to read them over several times to make sure I'm understanding |
| 21 |
it properly. "WTF?!?! Are you REALLY telling me the same thing three |
| 22 |
times?" |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
A short concise note is more likely to make sense and get the point |
| 25 |
across. Assuming it is written in English - which the original, of |
| 26 |
course, was not - a short note will feel logical to the reader and he |
| 27 |
or she will know immediately how to respond to it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
But, hey! It's your bug. File it. The longer it's left unfiled the |
| 30 |
less relevant this discussion becomes. You asked for opinions - just |
| 31 |
make sure the subject line of your bug report explains the problem |
| 32 |
clearly ;). "ewarn message is poor English, doesn't make sense" is my |
| 33 |
best suggestion. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Stroller. |
Archives