Bug report form controversy

[qirlib]

Continued from here.

@ztimms73

Uhh. I urgently need distractions from some well-known impending doom, so...

We are not hypocrites and this has never been and will never be.

The short version is a typical bug reporter does not know that.

You're linking an issue from someone who probably filed a temporary connection error to a third-party site as a bug as an anecdotal evidence to advocate a policy of plainly saying "we can close or ignore your issue unless you've filled in all the fields to our liking, even if it is completely unnecessary"?

There're all kinds of developers out there and, from my experience, a person who will do exactly that, that is, silently ignore the issue if there is a "Uh. No." in the device field, regardless of what is in the other fields is certainly within realms of possibility. If we're descending to ad hominem... let's just say you're yet to meet some very dumb and unpleasant yet domain-competent people.

P(This happens | Observed policy-as-written && Cost of alteration), given expected returns is high enough to reconsider filing bug, given my time slots. Through, if you were to argue, for Cost of alteration, that people usually don't bother with such things, I'd say you have a point.

I guess I've argued myself out.

[Koitharu]

Each contribution is important for us including issues

I think we should simplify issue template, in most cases so much information is not needed. I`ll create pr soon

[ztimms73]

@qirlib what exactly do you think should be in the issue template and what should not be?

[qirlib]

Sorry for the lateness of the reaction. The only thing I really wanted to remove was the perceived treatment of strict form adherence violations, optionally allowing for free form reporting. So, yeah, I think what was merged is fine; through I'd have converted "I have written a short but informative title." to a "Please write" label and moved it to the top and would've left kotatsu-parsers acknowledgment.

[Koitharu]

#201