Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>> so you're not really solving any problem by just changing a
>> label. Some people will only ever be happy if they get the FIXED
>> label on their reports.
>
> I'm not sure that's so. There are certainly many who don't like
> their reports marked INVALID, at least initially. I know I've seen many
> instances where the word INVALID has got peoples hackles up, yet after
> it's explained that it doesn't imply they shouldn't have raised the
> report in the first place, they're ok (I've explained to people before
> that the INVALID marking just indicates that there's no change required
> to the tree). This is the same issue I have with "NOTABUG" - it's like
> saying, "you're wrong, shouldn't have raised the report", just perhaps
> not as in-your-face as INVALID.
>
>
> Still, it looks like I'm being out-gunned on this one, and I'm
> starting to repeat myself, so I'll be quiet for a bit...
>
Well from experience of the forums, there are indeed users who have felt
bruised by their experience of bugzilla. I'm not sure if changing this flag
is the right solution. It's a bit of a leap in terms of user-friendliness
to go from the forums where everyone is supportive (or gets pulled up
unless it's OTW) to bugzilla where wranglers are trying to deal with a
flood of bugs and don't have the time to be diplomatic. And the standard
advice is to interact with bugzilla to contribute, so you get enthusiastic
beginners making the leap, only to annoy the busiest devs. It doesn't make
for a sensible learning curve imo, and leads to a lot of confusion.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>> so you're not really solving any problem by just changing a
>> label. Some people will only ever be happy if they get the FIXED
>> label on their reports.
>
> I'm not sure that's so. There are certainly many who don't like
> their reports marked INVALID, at least initially. I know I've seen many
> instances where the word INVALID has got peoples hackles up, yet after
> it's explained that it doesn't imply they shouldn't have raised the
> report in the first place, they're ok (I've explained to people before
> that the INVALID marking just indicates that there's no change required
> to the tree). This is the same issue I have with "NOTABUG" - it's like
> saying, "you're wrong, shouldn't have raised the report", just perhaps
> not as in-your-face as INVALID.
>
>
> Still, it looks like I'm being out-gunned on this one, and I'm
> starting to repeat myself, so I'll be quiet for a bit...
>
Well from experience of the forums, there are indeed users who have felt
bruised by their experience of bugzilla. I'm not sure if changing this flag
is the right solution. It's a bit of a leap in terms of user-friendliness
to go from the forums where everyone is supportive (or gets pulled up
unless it's OTW) to bugzilla where wranglers are trying to deal with a
flood of bugs and don't have the time to be diplomatic. And the standard
advice is to interact with bugzilla to contribute, so you get enthusiastic
beginners making the leap, only to annoy the busiest devs. It doesn't make
for a sensible learning curve imo, and leads to a lot of confusion.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list