Basic Bugzilla 支配するs

Why you should read this

Imagine how many people later on will read your 問題／発行する (means the 問題／発行する which you submitted, or which you 参加するd in)

community members who 成し遂げる triage on defects
developers who finally 直す／買収する，八百長をする the defect
いつかs developers who need to do 予選 work
QA engineer(s) who needs to 立証する the 直す／買収する，八百長をする
everybody who has the same problem and tries to understand whether

your defect also 述べるs his/her problem.
or whether your 問題／発行する is one they like to 投票（する） for

かもしれない a 使用者 experience team member 評価するing a feature request
かもしれない a 解放（する） team member 評価するing whether the defect is important enough to be 含むd in some 維持／整備 update such as 1.1.1.

You see, there are a lot of people who may read what you wrote. Thus, the 大多数 of the 支配するs below 焦点（を合わせる）s on making reading easier: Though they いつかs take you some little time to follow, they often save others a lot of time later on.

So please, not only when you 服従させる／提出する new 問題／発行するs, but also when you 追加する comments to 存在するing 問題／発行するs, try to help others by obeying these simple 支配するs.
Since not obeying them makes defect 扱うing more difficult (いつかs much more difficult), people may tend to not を取り引きする your 問題／発行するs until they are in a 形態／調整 to reasonably do so.

The 支配するs

For those of you who like it short and simple:

One problem - One 問題／発行する
供給する a meaningful 要約
供給する step-by-step descriptions
供給する見本文書s, if possible
Use Attachments where possible
Put all 関連した（警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） into the 問題／発行する

One problem - One 問題／発行する

When you 報告（する）／憶測 a problem, please 服従させる／提出する one 問題／発行する per problem. There are さまざまな推論する／理由s for this, amongst them:

The more （人が）群がるd an 問題／発行する is, the more likely is it that some problems may get lost over time.
Different problems are most likely to be 扱うd by different people (both in 工学, where the problem is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, and in QA, where it's 立証するd). The more problems you put into the 問題／発行する, the more difficult is this 問題／発行する to 扱う for all 伴う／関わるd parties.

In particular, if you're going to 令状宣告，判決s like "Besides this, I noticed that ...." or "There are several problems with....", then please 本気で ask yourself whether you should 服従させる／提出する多重の問題／発行するs instead of a 選び出す／独身 one.
If you don't follow this 支配する, be 用意が出来ている for people asking you to 分裂（する） up your 問題／発行する.

供給する a meaningful 要約

A lot of people have to を取り引きする a high number of 問題／発行するs on a 正規の／正選手 basis. Usually, this happens with 生成するing 報告（する）／憶測s about 問題／発行するs, where the 要約 of all 問題／発行するs, 加える some 付加 data, is 陳列する，発揮するd. Thus, the 要約 of an 問題／発行する is of very high importance: If 適切に chosen, it 許すs to

easily 認める an 問題／発行する in a 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） of dozens of others
find an 問題／発行する. Since duplicate 問題／発行するs are draining a lot of work from engaged community members, we always ask people to look whether the problem, which they are going to 服従させる／提出する as 問題／発行する, is already known and 報告（する）／憶測d. Of course this 作品 best if the 要約s of the 存在するing 問題／発行するs are as descriptive as possible.
裁判官 the importance of an 問題／発行する. "Spreadsheet problem" is いっそう少なく likely to be 扱うd 適切な than "Spreadsheet: Data loss when ...." or "Label X in dialog Y has a wrong 相殺する (2 pixels)"

Thus, please 避ける要約s like "Big Bug in OpenOffice" or "Impress problem" - they are of no real help, and 軍隊 people to waste time to 現実に browse to the 問題／発行する (instead of seeing it in a 報告（する）／憶測) to see what it is about.

供給する step-by-step descriptions

You, as the submitter of a problem, know 正確に／まさに what you were doing when you were 攻撃する，衝突する by the problem. However, most other people probably don't. For instance, they may have a 完全に different workflow for doing the same things you are doing.

Even an phrasing as innocent as "判型 the text as bold" 耐えるs the 可能性のある for a 誤解: You can get a bold text by 割り当てるing a style to it, by selecting it and 圧力（をかける）ing the 各々の button in the toolbox, by choosing "Style|Bold" from the 状況 menu, by choosing "判型|Character" from the menu or "Character" from the 状況 menu and then doing the change in the dialog. Thus, a problem description such as "When I try to 判型 the text as bold OpenOffice.org 衝突，墜落s" is of nearly no use, since it 軍隊s other people to ask 支援する what you meant.

This may be a trivial example, and you could argue that other people can 簡単に try, and then they will 結局遭遇（する） the problem and thus know what you meant. But, there are 推論する／理由s against this:

Though the problem may seem simple to you, there may be deeper 推論する／理由s which 妨げる others from trying. For instance, it may 衝突，墜落 only if you customized the "Bold" icon into a 非，不，無-基準 toolbox. In such a 事例／患者, people will try for no avail, without 遭遇（する）ing your problem at all, and thus waste time.
令状ing 負かす／撃墜する正確に／まさに what you did costs you some time once, but every reader (there may be 非常に／多数の during the lifetime of an 問題／発行する!) needs time for guessing and trying. It's more efficient if you do it, and QA and 工学 can concentrate on 直す／買収する，八百長をするing the problem, instead of 成し遂げるing triage on it.
There are a lot of シナリオs where the 始める，決める of 可能性 is much larger. Formatting a text as bold may be simple and 平易な (though you've already seen that there are at least 5 ways to do so), but other 仕事s may 要求する more steps which you 暗黙に know, but your reader doesn't.

You may be tempted to consider it stupid to 令状 a description like

open a new writer 文書
enter some 独断的な text
select the whole text 経由で "Edit|Select all"
from the 状況 menu of the text, chose "Style|Bold"
=> OpenOffice 衝突，墜落s

Indeed there may be 事例／患者s where this level of 詳細（に述べる） is superfluous. But believe us, more often than not, it in the final consequences saves more time than it takes.

Please always be aware that often enough, the reader of your 問題／発行する description does not have the same background, with 尊敬（する）・点 to the particular 仕事 you're doing, that you yourself have.

供給する見本文書s, if possible

If there is a problem with a particular 文書, then attach it. This most often 許すs people to really easily 再生する your problem by 簡単に開始 the 大（公）使館員d 文書.

If the description how to 再生する a defect (see 供給する step-by-step descriptions) 越えるs a 確かな限界, ask yourself whether you can 服従させる／提出する the result of the description as 見本文書, and attach it to the 問題／発行する.

Oh, and one thing: If there is a problem on page 3 of your 1000-page diploma 論題／論文, then please first try if the problem also occurs if you （土地などの）細長い一片 all pages except the third one. If so, then please 簡単に attach the stripped 見解／翻訳／版 of the 文書, not all 1000 pages ....

Use attachments where possible

Don't paste large とじ込み／提出するs into the description. For instance, if you're asked to 供給する a stack of a 衝突，墜落, copy this stack into a とじ込み／提出する, then attach this とじ込み／提出する. If you have some Basic 大型の or Java code which 誘発する／引き起こすs a problem, copy it into a separate とじ込み／提出する, and attach this とじ込み／提出する.

The 推論する／理由 here is simple: A 3-pager within the description of an 問題／発行する makes reading the 問題／発行する really difficult. Everybody who wants to get an impression of the 問題／発行する needs to ざっと目を通す through a lot of （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） which, though definitely important, is of only peripheral 利益／興味 for them at the moment.

Put all 関連した（警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） into the 問題／発行する

Don't use (only) links to 言及する to the bug descriptions. Links tend to become outdated over time, so if half a year later, somebody looks at your 問題／発行する, it has become meaningless.

If there is some 外部の資源述べるing your problem - 罰金, link it! But don't rely on links as the only mean for bug descriptions - copy the （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） which is necessary to 再生する the problem into the 問題／発行する.

The author of the 初めの文書 is Frank Schönheit. 建設的な feedback is welcome. You may also consider visiting the mailing 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる）献身的な to discussing 問題／発行する扱うing.