> > Also, if someone comes up "Zarro Boogs" we want them to try a few more
> > searches - that's what Zarro Boogs means - your bug exists, you just
> > haven't found it yet ;-)
>
> Well then you don't understand the psychology of someone that has a
> problem, unless you aren't serious. Believing that a bug already
> exists, that it must have been reported is about the only motivation to
> change the query and try again and for the most part those you aim the
> Helper at will fall at that fence.
So are you saying that "Zarro Boogs" should be changed to the more
explicit "I didn't find your bug but that doesn't mean it's not in here.
Try searching again"?
> > Asking people who do a failed search explicitly if they want to file a
> > new
> > bug will lead to more dupes being filed.
>
> And this is bad because someone has to recognise its a duplicate? Hmmm,
Yes. QA is already very busy indeed, and we've strongly resisted people
filing duplicates as a method of drawing attention to a bug. It is
_really_ labour-intensive.
> really a duplicate at all. Personally I'd rather have more duplicates
> the alternative of no entry,
Are you involved with QAing or fixing them? :-) Seriously, query Bugzilla
for the number of open bugs, and then ask yourself if we don't have enough
to be getting on with...
> The thing which first came to mind was the detailed description of
> DOCTYPE, quirks and strict. While this is useful stuff the important
> question is right at the end of that whole set of text...
<snip> Fair point. I'll rearrange this at some point.
> > a) Requires a complete rewrite
>
> Umm I'm not sure that in itself is either true or a reason for or
> against. It needs writing that's for sure but that in itself isn't a
> reason for not writing it.
No, but it's a reason that it won't get done ;-)
Look, Simon, you have good points but I have no bandwidth for Bugzilla
Helper right now (for reasons of which I'm sure you are aware.) I can
accept patches/rewrites/whatever, but it's as far as it goes. I'm sorry.
:-(
Gerv
