3 ms·

I am the author of this issue and I don't really know what you're talking about. Terseness is something I value in bug reports as a maintainer myself. I don't w

I am the author of this issue and I don't really know what you're talking about. Terseness is something I value in bug reports as a maintainer myself. I don't want to read someone yarning on about the breakfast they were eating when they encountered a bug. I want them to tell us everything they know, and then nothing else. The pattern I did here - create a record of the bug with what I know, then investigate it on my own and update the discussion when I have more information or a solution - is also something I like to see as a maintainer. Rude, entitled users is definitely a problem maintainers have to face. Here's a better example: https://l.sr.ht/2DEG.png https://l.sr.ht/2DEG.png But I don't think that this thread was such a case.

asddubs 6y ago
I don't think you were rude in the bug report, but I think there's an issue where if something is described with lots of brevity, even if accurate, it's hard to know if what was said is really what was meant, since there's enough bug reports that aren't careful about their language that you can't really trust someone when they just say "it just hangs". So in that case a more detailed description/picture/whatever of what exactly the error looks like is helpful even if technically it can be described in one sentence
marcan_42 6y ago
I think you were excessively terse. Nobody wants to know what you had for breakfast, but given the nature of the bug, clearly staring and restating the state of LANG, TERM, any intercepting terminal emulators, and how you were running this (on a serial try), would've helped narrow down the bug. Your initial report started with an incorrect premise - fish does not work on a vt220. The real bug ended up being that fish does not work on Linux serial ttys. That's fine - we all make these kinds of mistaken assumptions about bugs - but it's here where mentioning all the details helps. For example, without info about how it's hooked up via serial to a getty, it's unlikely someone unfamiliar with these setups would think about the possible consequences of that. And without mentioning the state of TERM, the bug is ambiguous: does fish not work on a physical vt220 with some settings, or does fish not work with TERM=vt220? Those are two different problems. Excessive verbosity is fluff, but excess brevity leads to information loss. Some redundancy is required to ensure the meaning gets across. This is human error correction. You weren't rude or entitled, but everyone on that thread, yourself included, displayed less than ideal bug reporting and handling skills. Things could've gone much more smoothly.
dogbreakfast 6y ago
I’m not sure about rude but the initial bug report isn’t particularly helpful.

asddubs 6y ago

I don't think you were rude in the bug report, but I think there's an issue where if something is described with lots of brevity, even if accurate, it's hard to know if what was said is really what was meant, since there's enough bug reports that aren't careful about their language that you can't really trust someone when they just say "it just hangs". So in that case a more detailed description/picture/whatever of what exactly the error looks like is helpful even if technically it can be described in one sentence

marcan_42 6y ago

I think you were excessively terse. Nobody wants to know what you had for breakfast, but given the nature of the bug, clearly staring and restating the state of LANG, TERM, any intercepting terminal emulators, and how you were running this (on a serial try), would've helped narrow down the bug. Your initial report started with an incorrect premise - fish does not work on a vt220. The real bug ended up being that fish does not work on Linux serial ttys. That's fine - we all make these kinds of mistaken assumptions about bugs - but it's here where mentioning all the details helps. For example, without info about how it's hooked up via serial to a getty, it's unlikely someone unfamiliar with these setups would think about the possible consequences of that. And without mentioning the state of TERM, the bug is ambiguous: does fish not work on a physical vt220 with some settings, or does fish not work with TERM=vt220? Those are two different problems. Excessive verbosity is fluff, but excess brevity leads to information loss. Some redundancy is required to ensure the meaning gets across. This is human error correction. You weren't rude or entitled, but everyone on that thread, yourself included, displayed less than ideal bug reporting and handling skills. Things could've gone much more smoothly.

dogbreakfast 6y ago

I’m not sure about rude but the initial bug report isn’t particularly helpful.