Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You have raised some interesting points.
I tried to delve backward to see what exactly those points were, but didn't get much success. It would be good for someone to summarise the positions; all I have at the moment is one side believes the other is not hearing the point they want to make, without stating in a single post what that point *is*. > If you consider the BTS as a help desk, then I think you will be > sorely disappointed. Yes, agreed. The topic-based mailing lists are the Debian project's answer to this need. While not perfect, they're far better suited than the BTS for that purpose. > It seems that to file a bug report the submitter first has to > research the problem, try and resolve it, and if possible, to > provide a patch. I would disagree entirely with “the submitter has to [do those things]”. That's too high a bar, and it's not true that it's necessary. You're right that, from the interest of getting the bug resolved efficiently, it is *preferable* for the bug submitter to do all those things (since they're in the best position to observe the problem and what affects it). I would say that all the bug submitter *has to* do, though, is be specific. They should describe what behaviour the observe and, crucially, how it differs from what behaviour they expect. They should state those things as unambiguously as possible. I wouldn't say anything further is *necessary*, only desirable. > I, too, am interested in other peoples views on this. Hope that helps. -- \ Contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping. | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
