On Tue Apr 29 02:07:42 2014, andreas.koenig.7os6VVqR@franz.ak.mind.de wrote:
Show quoted text> "Jens Rehsack via RT" <bug-File-ConfigDir@rt.cpan.org> writes:
>
> >> You don't have to answer bugreports but if you do answer, it's a fair
> >> game to actually provide an answer that clarifies not nebulizes.
> >
> > I did - but I answer in a sentence, not a novel :)
>
> Since you now answer in another three sentences we're getting closer to
> a novel than anybody needs.
It seems you need :P
Show quoted text> > Well, I didn't intend to miff you - I give you a hint how to use the
> > extra value GitHub provides ...
>
> In your first answer you chose a sentence of very low significance on
> the actual matter. Calling it a hint is an overstatement. Neither a hint
> that the bug is fixed, nor where it is fixed. No indication in which
> direction the code might evolve or might have evolved. Ha, novel.
> "Fixed" would provide enough significant bits.
I answered:
Show quoted text> List::MoreUtils is a recommendation and should stay.
And you figured out on you're own that there was a use statement within an eval block. So because you're much smarter than me, I didn't expect that you need an extra explanation that the eval was intentionally (beside a quick look into history and Changes would give an additional info about the 0.012 goal ^^).
Show quoted text> Bug ticketing systems have the bonus of being around when we're not.
> They are also of value for third parties. One peculiar type of third
> party is a future self of a party involved. A sentence of significance
> would pay off for every reader.
Sure, but there is no need to copy the Changes and the diff's into the ticket system.