# Change bug tracker "bogus" to "not-bug"? - Thread: https://externals.io/message/57494 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/57494 - Started by Justin Martin on 2012-01-24T23:11:52+00:00 - Messages: 13 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #57494 — Justin Martin — 2012-01-24T23:11:52+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57494 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 --- ## #57495 — Christopher Jones — 2012-01-24T23:12:11+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57495 · In reply to: #57494 > 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/ --- ## #57496 — Paul Dragoonis — 2012-01-24T23:16:47+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57496 · In reply to: #57495 On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones wrote: > > > > > […] > > I'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/ --- ## #57497 — Matthew Fonda — 2012-01-24T23:20:17+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57497 · In reply to: #57496 > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones > wrote: > > […] > > 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 --- ## #57498 — Charlie Somerville — 2012-01-24T23:21:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57498 · In reply to: #57497 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. > > > […] > > > I've felt this way for a long time. Big +1 on changing this. > > Cheers, > --Matthew --- ## #57499 — Ferenc Kovacs — 2012-01-24T23:47:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57499 · In reply to: #57494 > 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 --- ## #57500 — Christopher Jones — 2012-01-24T23:49:42+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57500 · In reply to: #57498 > 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/ --- ## #57501 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2012-01-24T23:59:51+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57501 · In reply to: #57499 > > > > […] > > +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) --- ## #57502 — Lester Caine — 2012-01-25T09:20:19+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57502 · In reply to: #57501 Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > […] > 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 --- ## #57503 — Pierre Joye — 2012-01-25T09:23:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57503 · In reply to: #57494 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 --- ## #57504 — Gwynne Raskind — 2012-01-25T09:34:10+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57504 · In reply to: #57503 > hi Justin, > > I'm totally for that, has been asked it for years. > > Let see what other nicer status we need as wel :) > > Cheers, > > > > […] Big +1 from me as well. --- ## #57511 — Larry Garfield — 2012-01-25T23:02:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57511 · In reply to: #57499 > > > > […] > > +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 --- ## #57536 — Rasmus Lerdorf — 2012-01-27T20:02:04+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/57494#57536 · In reply to: #57504 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