On czw, 2017-03-30 at 21:50 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 03/30/2017 09:40 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:59 -0400
> > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > It may even be possible to force this pragmatically. Require a comment with 
> > > any status/keyword change via code. Form submit validation requirement. That 
> > > way no one can get around it. It also does not require further enforcement, 
> > > social or otherwise :)
> > 
> > Or, as a hybrid between that suggestion and my other "packaged response", perhaps
> > pre-fill the comment section with a templated response for various resolution types.
> > 
> > That way it discourages using the wrong resolution, by way of forcing you to either
> > say the template, or delete the templated answer and provide your own.
> > 
> > Eh, but I see potential implementation fun there.
> > 
> 
> It wouldn't be too far of a stretch to argue a template text is
> redundant information given the statuses are already defined one click
> away. Maybe people should read them a bit more often, which itself can
> be a documentation issue... but still..
> 

You are wrongly assuming that Gentoo developers are going to read
documentation and follow it, rather than reinventing the existing status
to their own purposes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny