At 20:04 22/02/2001 +0000, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > > 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"?
Oh for sure. It might be amusing (though I can't recall when that actually
was for me), but its as informative as 'my left splonk now no longer
gastrosizes'.
> > > 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.
Yes I specifically didn't say 'file bugs to get your favourites fixed'.
> > 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...
Occasionally I fix ones in the trunk yes, I fix all my own. I run a test
plan of three platforms here and I QA every change that happens here. The
number of open bugs is a red herring, would you rather have fewer open bugs
and a shittier product?
> > 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 ;-)
So its still not a bad reason, its just a condition.
>
>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.
>:-(
I didn't expect _you_ to change anything :-)
Simon
>Gerv
===================================================
If I'd known I would spend so much time sorting and rearranging boxes
I'd have paid more attention at kindergarten
S.P. Lucy
