On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:30:50 -0600 R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ned Ludd wrote: > > > 232 matches. http://tinyurl.com/pmrmx > > The vast majority of which have an explanation in the comment > directly preceding.
In which case it's a moment's effort to cut-n-paste the text into the reassignment/resolution comment. Hence solar's laziness accusation. I'd go further, and suggest that sometimes it's not just laziness (since cut-n-paste isn't any more effort than typing '.') but a deliberate action to avoid explaining oneself. When re-assigning, it is extremely useful for the new assignee to see some relevant text, as this is the first bit of text they may see. If you just re-assign with '.' then the new assignee has to browse the bug to decide how to prioritise etc - which means flipping from your email client to the web browser or whatever. All of this breaks up processing the stream of stuff coming from bugzilla, causing wasted time - all because someone was deliberately evasive about why they reassigned. Similarly when resolving, just saying '.' means other interested parties have to browse the bug to check whether the resolution is valid or not - if there's a decent comment along with the resolution this becomes unnecessary in the majority of cases. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
