| Message ID | 35de2d76-a03e-4a36-9bb7-6b6ffa4ea123@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | improve bugreports | expand |
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 06:32:35PM +0100, Rubén Justo wrote: > Let's try to improve the readability of the bug reports we receive. > > The first message should not receive many comments. The second one > might. I'm open to suggestions. > > Thanks. > > Rubén Justo (2): > bugreport: add a new line between questions > bugreport: add a mark to each proposed questions > > builtin/bugreport.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > t/t0091-bugreport.sh | 12 ++++++++---- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.44.0.494.g7a0daf3e0d This series received no response. One option may be because it went unnoticed, another because it may not add value. I'm going to give it another try and I'll quietly :-) take silence as confirmation of the second option. I'll try to increase the chances of getting a "looks good" by CC'ing some folks involved in the bugreport tool. Thanks.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 3:04 AM Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 06:32:35PM +0100, Rubén Justo wrote: > > Let's try to improve the readability of the bug reports we receive. > > This series received no response. One option may be because it went > unnoticed, another because it may not add value. I'm going to give it > another try and I'll quietly :-) take silence as confirmation of the > second option. > > I'll try to increase the chances of getting a "looks good" by CC'ing > some folks involved in the bugreport tool. For what it's worth, when I read the cover letter of this series, I thought it was going to clean up the list of questions to eliminate redundancy. In particular, of the three questions: What did you expect to happen? What happened instead? What's different between what you expected and what actually happened? the final one seems to repeat what the first two ask, and it is common when answering the third question for people to simply repeat what was said in response to an earlier question.
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > redundancy. In particular, of the three questions: > > What did you expect to happen? > What happened instead? > What's different between what you expected > and what actually happened? > > the final one seems to repeat what the first two ask, and it is common > when answering the third question for people to simply repeat what was > said in response to an earlier question. The third one may need to be rephrased, but I think it should still be there. The intent is to make the reporter realize how unhelpful their answers are when they answer the first two questions with - I expected it to work correctly - It did not work correctly They hopefully would realize that "work correctly" needs to be elaborated in order to answer the third question in a useful way. If the first two questions have been answered in a usable way, the third one is often redundant.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 11:09:02PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 3:04 AM Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 06:32:35PM +0100, Rubén Justo wrote: > > > Let's try to improve the readability of the bug reports we receive. > > > > This series received no response. One option may be because it went > > unnoticed, another because it may not add value. I'm going to give it > > another try and I'll quietly :-) take silence as confirmation of the > > second option. > > > > I'll try to increase the chances of getting a "looks good" by CC'ing > > some folks involved in the bugreport tool. > > For what it's worth, when I read the cover letter of this series, I > thought it was going to clean up the list of questions to eliminate > redundancy. In particular, of the three questions: > > What did you expect to happen? > What happened instead? > What's different between what you expected > and what actually happened? > > the final one seems to repeat what the first two ask, and it is common > when answering the third question for people to simply repeat what was > said in response to an earlier question. Certainly, a diagnostic questionnaire can always be improved. Unfortunately I do not have a better wording to offer here to reduce that sense of repetition. Thanks for your response.