[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Solved]

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [Solved]
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 01:27:26 +0300

> From: Memnon Anon <>
> Cc:
> Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:18:21 +0200
> Eli Zaretskii <> writes:
> > I urge you to reconsider.  Sending an email saying that the doc string
> > of org-clock-in does not say what value to assign to the SELECT
> > argument in a non-interactive call does not need any high level of
> > expertise.  
> Sending the mail does not need expertise. But recognizing if something
> really is a deficiency does. Bug reports are great, but creating
> "noise" is not; and I really don't want to be a nuisance to the experts
> who provide me with so excellent tools. And even if I did recognize a
> lack of precision - which requires some knowledge of best practice in
> doc strings - I would want to send a patch, which requires even more
> knowledge of doc strings in general (= not only seeing what is wrong but
> also 'fixing' it).

Sending a patch is fine.  But if you cannot send a patch, at least
make a bug report.  Doing nothing after you spotted a problem is IMO
worse than sending a bug report out of mistake or misunderstanding.

> One way is looking for other docstrings that seem to be "better".
> In org, I found lots of functions that are usually called interactively
> that have a doc string like the one before.

Even more reason to submit a report: it sounds like many doc strings
there need the same treatment.

> Should I really file bug reports when I obviously do not understand
> whats going on?

Yes.  An unclear doc string needs improvement.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]