On 13 April 2012 05:32, Aaron Bentley <aa...@canonical.com> wrote: > The sense of entitlement sometimes implied by imperatives can be > irritating, but the imperative itself is not the problem. Most > imperatives can be rephrased without changing their meaning. For > example, "Foo should bar" can be rephrased as "Foo does not bar". The > "should" is implied in the latter phrasing, but the meaning is > essentially unchanged. > > So I think imperatives are only a hint that the bug is suboptimal.
I agree. I think the important thing is that the bug clearly describe a testable assertion about the system and, if it's not obvious, the reason why the reporter thinks this is bad. For instance, scanning the criticals, 341927 "launchpad needs bounce handling of email" is perfectly clear and concise, and the description removes any doubt. "Launchpad doesn't disable sending mail to destinations that bounce" wouldn't help anybody. Insisting on only negative assertions reminds me of high school science requirements that reports be written in passive voice, which is archaic and distracted the students from a more important point about reports being clear and not too subjective. Robert's other (main?) point about not filing cryptic bugs as notes to yourself or workflow trackers makes sense. -- Martin _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
