Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
some other alternatives which was proposed in the past:
> - Not a bug, proposed by Philip and others
> - NFF/No Fault Found, proposed by RQuadling
>
> honorable mentions:
> - pebkac, doofus, and 'not our problem' from yawk
> - SEP (Someone else's problem) from cjones
>
583: CNR (Could Not Reproduce)
Actually that is perhaps a missing option?
As opposed to those 'bugs' which can be reproduced, but are actually by design,
or relate to now unsupported functionality? (? won't fix)
The list of 'quick fix' options are perhaps just as misleading, and some of the
combinations suggest 'bogus' when in fact they can be better identified. 'Wont
Fix' == 'No longer supported' perhaps, and 'Submitted Twice' is simply
'duplicate' which needs a link to the main bug id.
I think that it is perhaps time there was a more comprehensive review of the
tagging options, and perhaps breaking down things a little more? It is not
immediately obvious as what statuses are 'open' and what 'closed'? 'Feedback and
No feedback' for instance when seeking more information on what is currently a
CNR? Flagging as Assigned, Analysed or Verified on something identified as
'critical'? And a more consistent use of the 'Bug type' ( perhaps 'Critical bug'
should be there? ) so that documentation problems are not listed as bugs - such
as 'bugs' currently listed against the outage on the website? Although a
'website' bug type might be appropriate for that? Certainly they are only a
'Documentation problem'
--
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
