6 ms·

ok boomer

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
What, did that make you mad? Why're you mad?
IIsi50MHz 5y ago
The provided step-to-reproduce (not steps, since there's only one) seems to be regarded by the reporter as an automic operation (indivisble; a single step). The other person is, I think, trying to express that it can potentially be done more than one way, so additional steps are required. From a QA perspective, I prefer not to guess what the reporter might have intended. It's much better to have tons of detail, but I can sympathise with being the user and _thinking_ you have been totally clear and am know I've sometimes done this myself. (( Unrelatedly, "ok boomer"? Since that seems such a non sequitur, I'll take in another unrelated direction and raise you an "ok athena" and "waddaya hear, starkuck?". ))
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  You have been trolled. The entire point of saying "ok boomer" here is to, as economically as possible, be dismissive while getting the other side to spend disproportionate energy defending the the thing being dismissed. > From a QA perspective, I prefer not to guess what the reporter might have intended There's not really any other perspective. That thing which you say you "prefer" is much more than a preference. It is the only reason why the bug tracker is configured to even ask for STR. If you have a "no solicitors" sign on your front door and a solicitor comes knocking anyway, or you have your door locked and a burglar climbs through a broken window and and takes all your stuff, you wouldn't respond by saying, "from my perspective, it's really disruptive and time-consuming to deal with solicitors who ignore the sign" or, "try to understand that from my perspective, it's really inconvenient when you take my things, because I have to work and spend money to replace them when I could have used that time and money doing something else." To do so tacitly legitimizes an illegitimate position held by the other. Please look up "DARVO" to understand why explaining yourself like this is a bad idea.

ok boomer

What, did that make you mad? Why're you mad?

The provided step-to-reproduce (not steps, since there's only one) seems to be regarded by the reporter as an automic operation (indivisble; a single step). The other person is, I think, trying to express that it can potentially be done more than one way, so additional steps are required. From a QA perspective, I prefer not to guess what the reporter might have intended. It's much better to have tons of detail, but I can sympathise with being the user and _thinking_ you have been totally clear and am know I've sometimes done this myself. (( Unrelatedly, "ok boomer"? Since that seems such a non sequitur, I'll take in another unrelated direction and raise you an "ok athena" and "waddaya hear, starkuck?". ))

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
You have been trolled. The entire point of saying "ok boomer" here is to, as economically as possible, be dismissive while getting the other side to spend disproportionate energy defending the the thing being dismissed. > From a QA perspective, I prefer not to guess what the reporter might have intended There's not really any other perspective. That thing which you say you "prefer" is much more than a preference. It is the only reason why the bug tracker is configured to even ask for STR. If you have a "no solicitors" sign on your front door and a solicitor comes knocking anyway, or you have your door locked and a burglar climbs through a broken window and and takes all your stuff, you wouldn't respond by saying, "from my perspective, it's really disruptive and time-consuming to deal with solicitors who ignore the sign" or, "try to understand that from my perspective, it's really inconvenient when you take my things, because I have to work and spend money to replace them when I could have used that time and money doing something else." To do so tacitly legitimizes an illegitimate position held by the other. Please look up "DARVO" to understand why explaining yourself like this is a bad idea.