Last modified: 2014-02-27 11:43:38 UTC
The default assignee "Nobody <wikibugs-l at lists wikimedia org>" does not clearly express that contributors are welcome to work on it. bugs.merproject.org for example calls the account "Not taken" instead of "Nobody". I'd love to replace "Nobody" by something more descriptive, like "Nobody working on it, feel free to take it". But shorter. Any ideas? :)
A good idea, except not everyone is free to take bugs, per earlier discussions on the mailing list. At the moment, that text would be tantalisingly misleading. Once the editbugs issue is sorted out, then I would support this change.
(In reply to comment #0) > The default assignee "Nobody <wikibugs-l at lists wikimedia org>" does not > clearly express that contributors are welcome to work on it. > > bugs.merproject.org for example calls the account "Not taken" instead of > "Nobody". > > I'd love to replace "Nobody" by something more descriptive, like "Nobody > working on it, feel free to take it". But shorter. Any ideas? :) "Unassigned, please fix me"
I felt bold for a short moment and changed it to "Nobody - You can work on this!" (which does not necessarily mean that you need to change assignee, you can also express such intention in a comment). Hence I'm closing this as FIXED, though finding a good phrase which is not too long probably has great bikeshed potential. :D
Random anecdote for the records: a new contributor, who wanted to work on a bug (and eventually fixed it), did not have editbugs (bug 40497) and hence lacked teh "take" link; he mistook the "Nobody - You can work on this!" link as an action link to take the bug, while of course it's just a mailto: to the list. Less random actionable: file a bug for it not to be a link?
I hate this notion that people think they need to have things assigned to them to be able to do it. I know I've fixed many not assigned to me, and then being closed without it still being assigned. You know, that time when we didn't bother with assignee at all. A comment on the bug more than sufficient
I don't think we care about assignee more than we did in the past. We're trying to reduce confusion about that, we seem to be working against some external mis-educating force. If the "Assignee: Nobody" field itself is considered evil, Reedy, you could file a bug about collapsing or otherwise hiding it as long as it's unused, as recently done for flags. Or something.
(In reply to Sam Reed (reedy) from comment #5) > I hate this notion that people think they need to have things assigned to > them to be able to do it. I am trying to explain this in https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Annoying_little_bugs#Helpful_information_for_new_MediaWiki_coders which should become the main entrance point for bugs with the "easy" keyword. Currently it says: "You do not need to be set as the assignee in a bug report or announce your plans before you start working on a bug, but it is welcome. At the latest when you are close to creating a patch for the bug, it is good to announce in a comment that you are working on it." Comments on its talkpage welcome. Or editing. Be bold! ;)
