On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 14 July 2010 03:22:30 pm Dirk Haun wrote: >> Am 13.07.2010 um 17:12 Uhr schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: >> > it would be an interesting to check how many bugs were first marked as >> > bogus then re-opened and fixed. >> >> I've been wondering for a while now if much of the emotional reaction to >> bugs being closed as "bogus" is due to that very word. I mean, the >> reporter obviously put some work into the bug report and the issue was >> apparently important enough for them to even bother opening a bug report >> in the first place. And then, after all this effort, the verdict is that >> it's "bogus". >> >> Can't really think of a good alternative right now. But if a bug was closed >> with a more neutral "can't reproduce", "works as designed" or something >> like that then maybe there wouldn't be such strong reactions? >> >> Just an observation from the side lines ... > > I'd have to agree. "Bugus" has an implication of "fake". As in, the > submitter faked a bug report. That is rarely the intent, I'm sure. > > For the Drupal project (which I work on), our "no" issue statuses are "by > design", "postponed", and "won't fix". (And of course duplicate.) I > sometimes > wonder if "won't fix" is even too negative sounding. > > It's amazing what a little wording can mean, especially to new contributors.
I fully agree. I'm one of the persons willing to kill this status. For "won't fix" I was thinking about "can't fix" instead (same result but w/explanations). -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
