Hi,
Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
Hi Andre,
Aha! I didn't understand that you meant a mailing list for dogfooders.
I agree with you that a community of technically skilled
users/dogfooders helping out other users/dogfooders would be a real
asset to the project. It is indeed frustrating to have a bug parked at
"works for me" when the bug still occurs for the person dogfooding --
I can see how a forum for discussing the bug would be helpful. You
bring up a good point that we have a window of a few months to think
through the mechanics about how we'll support early adopters.
Anyone else have 2c on whether now is the time to start up such a
list, in advance of Preview?
I think having such a list will help encourage new comers to share their
experience with a like minded community (i.e. end users). I have
anecdotal evidence thanks to people emailing me directly that our lists
are viewed as too technical for end users questions. This is our loss in
the end since we miss out on important feedback.
I'd say that we should have that list ready in advance of Preview (1
month at least) so that we can iron out the kinks before Preview gets
out and we have an established identified place for new comers to mingle.
Note that an online forum might be better suited for this though I
personally don't see a big difference (as a user) between an archived
mailing list and a forum. Opinion?
Anything else that would be helpful in establishing such a community?
We weren't really ready for that in the past, but Chandler is now
stable enough that we can start pushing on that as a goal.
Is "works for me" the right resolution for bugs the developers can't
reproduce but we know happen for end users? If not, how should we
handle these bugs? (Mail bugs in particular seem prone to this kind of
situation).
I think it's the right resolution. I know it can be frustrating but the
alternative (leaving the bug open and dangling with no clear action) is
no better. No one should take the resolution personally (we *are*
grateful for the report). The wording of the resolution doesn't mean
more than what it says ("works for the developer/tester"). At least, it
shows that a fair attempt at reproducing the bug has been made and
nothing prevents the discussion to continue between devs and users (on
the afore mentioned mailing list) and the bug to be reopen if a new info
shows up. It's also good to have a record so that the bug and attempt to
repro can be searched and consulted by others with similar issues.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
