Subject: bug#8119: 24.0.50; `mark-active' needs its doc string

From: "Drew Adams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:00:41 -0800

> > > FWIW, I see no harm at all in retitling, and I do see a certain
> > > value in having the title express the essence of the bug report.
> > 
> > And do you see such a policy as the general practice elsewhere?
> 
> On my daytime job, I frequently retitle bug reports, because many of
> my co-workers don't know how to express themselves in English too
> well.

OK, good to know.

FWIW, my experience has been the opposite; bugs are not retitled.
They often get clarified, corrected, reclassified, and merged, but not retitled
AFAICT.

It thus happens that one sees some bug titles that bear little apparent relation
to the ultimate diagnosis (not to mention diagnoses along the way).  The titles
remain as originally posted, whether posted internally or by a customer.

> I have yet to see anyone complain about that; all of the
> correspondence about bugs quotes their numbers anyway.

Yes, as I said, the bug number is the primary and unique identifier, and as such
it nearly always appears in correspondence.

But as Glen pointed out, titles can be used for searching, and replacing a user
name of a problem by a developer name for it doesn't necessarily help users
search for it.  It might help some users, but it might well disadvantage others,
including the OP.