quoting, tasks, semantics

[Gervase Markham]

Christopher Hicks wrote:
> I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree.
> 
> The examples that come to mind are cases where we have a bug to write a 
> simple web application.

I'd argue if you have a single bug for an entire web application, 
something's wrong already :-) Regardless, I would close that bug when 
finished rather than attempt to re-use it for post-release feedback.

> Naturally people don't know what they want 
> until they get what they've already asked for, so there end up being a 
> slew of tweaks.  Since I'm getting paid to do this I don't really care 
> how many tweaks they come up with.  From a semantic perspective you 
> might consider the tweaks to be bugs in and of themselves, but to me 
> tweaks are to bugs as threads are to processes. 

If it's so small that it's not worth filing a bug about, then it can be 
implemented without discussion after you've seen the comment/got the 
email. If it requires discussion, then it's worth filing a bug about IMO.

Also, getting them to file bugs puts a small barrier in the way, so that 
only things they care enough about to spend 30 seconds filing a bug 
report on get into the system. This might eliminate quite a few 
frivolous requests.

> In other words, tweaks 
> and tasks are like bugs, but they're light weight and they don't require 
> as much overhead. Practically speaking, expecting folks to make a new 
> bug for every tweak would be ridiculous and a significant overhead for 
> the bug reporter and the developer.

It depends how good your customised enter_bug.cgi template is. ;-)

Gerv