On Tuesday 06 July 2004 11:58, Jamis Buck wrote:
> Sean O'Dell wrote:
> >>It would have to be handled delicately. Otherwise, this sounds like a
> >>great way to discourage people from submitting bugs. :( I can think of
> >>lots of people, many of whom I work with, who would rather just work
> >>around the bug than report it if the bug reporting process was too
> >>cumbersome.
> >
> > On the other hand, it would save a lot of time trying to decipher cryptic
> > bug reports, or reports that misinterpret the nature of the bug itself,
> > making actual location of the problem difficult.  I would say at least
> > half, if not more, of all bug reports I get don't come with enough
> > information for me to locate the problem, or I simply cannot reproduce
> > the bug as described.
>
> To be sure, there is a trade off. In this case, it's a trade off between
> having really good reports for the bugs that get reported, but missing
> many real bugs that would have been reported if the process were less
> cumbersome, and having poor-to-mediocre bug reports that, when
> reproducible, cover a larger span of bugs.

You've cut out my quote where I said "allow the user"; I didn't say or imply 
"force the user."  There are many users who can report bugs but simply don't 
have the programming skill required to submit a unit test.  That said, to a 
person with the skill to provide a unit test, it would be a simple process to 
write "x feature bombs, check this out" followed by a short unit test.

	Sean O'Dell