Re: clearer bugzilla stock responses. shorter ways.

["Brian Kerrick Nickel" <brian nickel gmail com>]

One change I would recommend is the link provided in the BAD STACK TRACE stock response.
Since the majority of people would be sending from bug-buddy (I think), and all of them already are sending stack traces, sending them to a page telling them how to use bug buddy and get stack traces doesn't make much sense. 
http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces/DistroSpecificInstructions makes more sense as a default link because this contains only (and pretty much all) the information they need. This page could also be made friendlier with example commands, examples with screenshots, and helpful links that will make the process easier.

- Brian Nickel

On 10/10/06, Andre Klapper <ak-47 gmx net> wrote:

hejho folks,

tonight i again have to realize that not being sober also means that one
should spend some time to make the world a better place, e.g. by making
it easier for the user to understand the "get us a cute stacktrace,
darling!" bugzilla stock response.
so pass it over, and read what what was written down:

currently, the NEEDS STACK TRACE and the BAD STACK TRACE stock responses
[1] ask the user:
        "Can you provide us with one?" and
        "Can you get us one with debugging symbols?"
we should change "one" to "a stack trace" to make the question become
more effectively.

also, "Can you provide us with one?" and "Can you get us one" should be
harmonized - i think i prefer "get" here, because it's more likely that
non-native speaker know the term "get".[2]

we use
        "Thanks for taking the time to report this bug." and
        "Thanks for the bug report."
let's harmonize that by only using the first phrase, being polite and
thankful that a user spends his spare time to report this.

the
        "Unfortunately, that stack trace is not very useful in
        determining the cause of the crash."
phrase could be more descriptive, like
        "Unfortunately, that stack trace is missing some elements that
        will help solve the problem, so it will be hard for the
        developers to fix that crash."
"not very useful" really sounds a bit harsh to me, i'd like to avoid
users' thinking that it could be their fault that it's not useful - yes,
those "oh no, it has crashed, what did _i_ do wrong?" users.

i'd also change the "obsolete" response from
"However, the version you are using is no longer maintained." to
something like
"However, the version you are using is no longer maintained, so there
will not be any bug fixes for the version that you use."
'maintained' sounds abstract, let's tell the user about the results.


this partially might look like nitpicking, but consistency and clear
questions can be helpful to encourage reporters to answer (and of course
it's my first step to renew the "GettingTraces" wiki page ;-).

i think we need shorter and clearer ways to provide the knowledge that
is needed (e.g. how to get a proper stacktrace) to the user. the shorter
it takes, the more likely the user will not abort.
will see what i can do.

comments and improvements welcome.

andre

(thanks to brian nickel who already posted an email about the stock
responses some weeks ago.)


[1] http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/TriageGuide/StockResponses ,
     http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/TriageGuide/StockResponses/Raw
[2] http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/TriageGuide/FindingDuplicates would
    also have to be updated to reflect a potential string change
--
mailto:ak-47 gmx net | failed!
http://www.iomc.de


_______________________________________________
Gnome-bugsquad mailing list
Gnome-bugsquad gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-bugsquad