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