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.
Gimp-developer mailing list