Pierre Joye wrote:
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).
We are deep in the realms of language interpretation here ;)
In my book ...
"won't fix" implies "that is the way we do it and you live with it"
--- equivalent to "by design"
"can't fix" implies "for other reasons we can't change this"
--- "postponed" may be appropriate if it is a good idea but requires other
changes but I would think "wish list" is better?
"work's for me" makes sense as long as it is applied to the case in the bug
report and not just a different side case.
--- "need more detail" may actually be more appropriate?
BOGUS has always been wrong, but in the absence of an alternative .....
A slight aside is also the generally accepted practice of 'fixing' a bug and
closing it as fixed straight away ... "to be tested" would be more appropriate
so that a third party confirms that the fix does actually work and puts another
pair of eyes and set-up environment in the loop?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
