On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 17:13, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14.10.2011 23:10, spongman wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 1:50 pm, Andy Levy<andy.l..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Neveroldmilk has failed to provide any information which could be used
>>> to track down an issue beyond "it's broke, fix it, you guys don't test
>>> very well."
>>
>> sure, it wasn't the best bug report. but surely it was a whole lot
>> better than no bug report at all?
>
> No, not really.
> We could have asked further questions, but as he mentioned in the
> subject, he already downgraded to 1.6.16. So any further questions would
> be useless, because anything we need to ask him to try he can't do
> anymore. And that makes the whole report useless. All that's left is
> just a rant about the quality of our work.
Even worse than being useless, in my opinion, is that it's a waste of
time. And then spongman shows up and apparently feels compelled to
waste yet more time by defending the useless bug report instead of
trying to draw out a better one. (And then I feel compelled to agree
with Stefan, but I'll try to shoehorn in something useful too.)
So, spongman: Imagine that one of your users came to you with the
functionally equivalent bug report: "I can't use your latest version.
It's broken. I'm using the previous version now. You should test
more." What would you do with this bug report? Would you attempt to
fix it? If so, how would you know when you had fixed it? If not,
you're ignoring it, and the report is useless. In the latter case, the
time you spent not-fixing the not-a-bug is time you could have spent
dealing with real bugs. Or having a life.
Dale McCoy
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2855643
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-10-15 06:44:44 CEST