Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they
are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for
documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the
documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation thoroughly enough.
I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug
is being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.
Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin Martin
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation
thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.
Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin Martin
I'm +1 on this. It's time for a new, more collaborative approach.
Chris
--
Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com
Tel: +1 650 506 8630
Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jones@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they
are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for
documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the
documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation
thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin MartinI'm +1 on this. It's time for a new, more collaborative approach.
Sure, I'll +1 on this. The "bogus" implies "RTFM, bitch", which isn't
professional at all :-)
Chris
--
Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com
Tel: +1 650 506 8630
Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jones@oracle.com wrote:Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they
are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for
documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the
documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation
thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin MartinI'm +1 on this. It's time for a new, more collaborative approach.
Sure, I'll +1 on this. The "bogus" implies "RTFM, bitch", which isn't
professional at all :-)
I've felt this way for a long time. Big +1 on changing this.
Cheers,
--Matthew
It'd also be nice to see a more receptive approach to bug reports. It's concerning that so many legitimate bug reports get labelled as bogus for whatever reason.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones
<christopher.jones@oracle.com (mailto:christopher.jones@oracle.com)> wrote:Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they
are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for
documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the
documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation
thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin MartinI'm +1 on this. It's time for a new, more collaborative approach.
Sure, I'll +1 on this. The "bogus" implies "RTFM, bitch", which isn't
professional at all :-)I've felt this way for a long time. Big +1 on changing this.
Cheers,
--Matthew
It'd also be nice to see a more receptive approach to bug
reports. It's concerning that so many legitimate bug reports get
labelled as bogus for whatever reason.
To be 100% clear, this is just a proposed wording change. The bugs
you mention would now be marked "not a bug" for exactly the same
reasons they currently get marked "bogus".
Chris
--
Email: christopher.jones@oracle.com
Tel: +1 650 506 8630
Blog: http://blogs.oracle.com/opal/
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they
are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for
documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the
documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin Martin
+1 on this.
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
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they
are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for
documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the
documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin Martin+1 on this.
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)
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
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they
are reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for
documentation problems, where someone has misunderstood what the
documentation says, or hasn't read the documentation thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin Martin+1 on this.
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
I was recently introduced to the concept of the "Level 8" error. (Let's
see who gets that one...)
Anyway, +1 from me as well to friendlier, less accusational issue statuses.
--Larry Garfield
hi Justin,
I'm totally for that, has been asked it for years.
Let see what other nicer status we need as wel :)
Cheers,
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they are
reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for documentation
problems, where someone has misunderstood what the documentation says, or
hasn't read the documentation thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Thank you,
Justin Martin--
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
hi Justin,
I'm totally for that, has been asked it for years.
Let see what other nicer status we need as wel :)
Cheers,
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not "bogus", so much as they are
reported based on a misunderstanding. Usually this happens for documentation
problems, where someone has misunderstood what the documentation says, or
hasn't read the documentation thoroughly enough.I'd like to propose simply changing the term "bogus" to "not-bug". This
would more politely and clearly indicate the nature of the way the bug is
being closed, in addition to the comment that one ordinarily leaves.Those I've spoken to in php.doc agree. Any objections?
Big +1 from me as well.
Ok, by popular demand I have changed "Bogus" to "Not a bug" in the bugs
tracker. The sub-status stuff we have been discussing can just be added
in the comment when you mark something as "Not a bug". eg.
Status: Not a bug
Reason: 583 CNR
So, having done this, for the folks too skittish to mark stuff Bogus on
people, please take another look at the bug database and help us address
the outstanding bugs and mark things as "Not a bug" for the stuff that
clearly isn't. If you need more info from the bug reporter, set the
status to feedback and ask in the comment.
There are common search queries on the front page at https:bugs.php.net.
Hit the "Most recent open bugs (all)" link and start going through them.
-Rasmus