There is a practice within OO bugzilla management (at least with some QA persons) to 1. thank the bug reporter for his work - whether it is useless from a developer's POV or not. 2. if it is a well-known bug or the problem should be known from FAQ or other online document, the link to this document or to the original bug is presented. As I use OO from its first public builds, I can say such an approach is much appreciated and inspires a reporter to proceed with the investigations or with the program itself. I definitely do not want to offend anybody on this list as often I am in a developer's shoes myself.
Raphaël Quinet wrote: > > Let's take the perspective of the bug reporter: if you report a bug > or suggest an improvement and your report is rejected by the > developers, then your initial impression will be slightly negative. > A "neutral" explanation may be perceived as rude because you took > the trouble to find out how to report GIMP bugs, you registered in > Bugzilla, you spent the time to write the bug report and the only > thing you get in return is a too brief message telling you that > your bug report was rejected. > > Contrary to what Michael wrote in another message, I like the > canned replies in Bugzilla because most of them start by thanking > the reporter. Although I agree that they could be improved and > could include two lines about how to avoid duplicates in the future > or how to find some FAQs and so on, they are good enough in most > cases. These thanks help to offset the negative impression that > the reporters might have after seeing their bug reports rejected or > marked as a duplicates of another one. -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer