On 2/13/2011 8:46 PM, Diederik van Liere wrote:
I think we can draw some inspiration from Mozilla's use of Bugzilla and particular the format they are encourage users when submitting a bugreport:
- Steps to reproduce
- Expected result
- Actual result
- Reproducible (by bugreporter): always / sometimes
- Version information, extensions installed, database used (this
information is dependent on the skill level of the bugreporter and maybe we can add make this information easily retrievable if it's current not easy to determine.
So maybe we can paste these 5 steps (or something similar) in the initial form used to file a bugreport.
This would increase the quality of bugreports and make it easier for bug triaging.
I can totally understand the idea behind this but I think Amir brings up the concern about this best:
On 2/13/2011 5:56 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
bugzilla.wikimedia.org is the tracker where i report more bugs than elsewhere. The second is bugzilla.mozilla.org . It's not because Firefox has less bugs (quite the contrary!) but because Mozilla's tracker requires me to fill more fields, such as steps for reproduction. This may encourage detailed reporting that helps developers solve the bugs, but it may also discourage people from reporting them in the first place. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Gathering all that information on a bug report form could quite clearly make it easier to reproduce bugs and may make resolving them easier but I worry that the harder and/or more complicated we make the reporting the more likely we are to scare someone away from taking the time to file the bug (which we want). I'm not totally sure where the best balance there is.