launchpad-dev team mailing list archive
-
launchpad-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #09249
Re: imperatives in bugs considered harmful - even for short lived workitems
-
To:
launchpad-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
From:
Julian Edwards <julian.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-
Date:
Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:38:22 +1000
-
In-reply-to:
<CAA9uavAwY=-RfytpQySM4o5vY65NawaK+L7d65XWf6NRdeR89Q@mail.gmail.com>
-
Organization:
Canonical Ltd
-
User-agent:
KMail/4.8.2 (Linux/3.2.0-23-generic; KDE/4.8.2; x86_64; ; )
On Friday 13 April 2012 09:26:02 Martin Pool wrote:
> I agree. I think the important thing is that the bug clearly describe
> a testable assertion about the system and, if it's not obvious, the
> reason why the reporter thinks this is bad.
>
> For instance, scanning the criticals, 341927 "launchpad needs bounce
> handling of email" is perfectly clear and concise, and the description
> removes any doubt. "Launchpad doesn't disable sending mail to
> destinations that bounce" wouldn't help anybody.
The key to this particular one being a successful bug report is that the
description describes *why* something is problem. Where I get irritated with
bug reports is where they say something "should" happen but fail to explain
anything about why or give me any background.
I still think the title should summarise the problem though, it *really* helps
when scanning bug listings where I don't see the description.
Follow ups
References