Jason Trebilcock wrote: > Seems to me, if we're receiving 'incomplete requests', then maybe > there's a way to drive towards more complete requests. > > In the LoadRunner forum on SQAForums, they're pretty militant about > getting environment information upfront before they'll answer questions. > > Maybe if we adopted some sort of a set of questions to be answered, > then we might get some more thorough questions and be better able to > provide answers. > > Something akin to: > Ruby version: > Watir version: > OS/browser versions: > Code: > HTML: > What's wrong/not working/whatever (how 'bout an error message?): > > Granted, there are some questions (and/or people) for whom this might > be a little ridiculous...but it could make for an easy template to > spit back at the incomplete request. > > Like you said, it really isn't terribly different from someone logging > a defect/enhancement/whatever. So a little pushback, I think, might > get things moving in a better direction. I guess it feels like "a little pushback" is what we are doing now, without much effect. Check out the top paragraph here: http://groups.google.com/group/watir-general
Bret --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Watir General" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Before posting, please read the following guidelines: http://wiki.openqa.org/display/WTR/Support To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/watir-general -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
