On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 11:48 -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > > As I said, the issue is not with 'only good bug reports', it's with 'we > > can ensure only good bug reports by making it a pain to report bugs at all'. > > I'd also like to point out that if the approach is being taken on the > assumption that on technically advanced people write good reports, then > I'd like to point out that > > a) There are plenty of technically advanced people who really suck at > writing good bug reports > b) There are a goodly number of noobs who given the right > prompts/prompting can give better bug reports than even many technically > advanced users who aren't in a). > c) There are going to be bad bug reports no matter how badly you try to > avoid it > d) Making it hard to report bugs means that bugs don't get reported, > even in cases where all you needed to fix the bug was to know it existed.
All very true. It's also worth noting that if you are "guided" too hard to include information which you don't have or can't accurately provide, or which is irrelevant in your specific case, then you often end up making stuff up and that *detracts* from the quality of the report. I have a lot of expense reports where the mandatory "Business purpose?" field has the simple answer "yes" :) -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
