Re: What's the deal with this "programming error"?

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:38 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:37 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> And of course, adding more information is done _automatically_ when
>>> someone responds to the tracked report.  So adding to the tracker
>>> with a canned phrase "Small example, and error symptom still missing"
>>> might well be a safe choice in any case.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by "error symptom still missing".  If [...]
>> the user explains why the output is incorrect,
>
> That's the error symptom.  Probably "error syndrome" would have been a
> more proper term.  Sorry.

I had to look up "syndrome" on wikipedia, but I see what you mean.  I
disagree, though -- I would prefer to put the onus on the bug
reporter.  Once the issue is in the tracker, there's no urgency for
the initial reporter to add more info.

The key is to respond to the issue quickly.  This works quite well; I
did it for a year or two.  As long as there's a reply and an actual
discussion happens, users are happy to provide more information,
explanations, and the rest.  It's when they don't hear anything for
days, weeks, or months that they get (justifiably) upset.

That's why I keep on harping on the "find a reason to reject the
report" idea -- if there's a clear-cut policy reason to "reject" a
report, then the Squad member can reply immediately, or within 30
seconds, or something.  But the key is to *reply*, instead of letting
reports pass them by.


On this point I'm going to use whatever veto power you give me.  I'm
convinced it will work; I did it this way for months and it worked
just fine.  If the Bug Squad adopts this method and it's failing over
the course of 3-4 months, I'll be wiling to re-open the discussion,
but not until then.

Cheers,
- Graham