FAQ
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

Search Discussions

  • Christopher Jones at Jan 24, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    On 01/24/2012 03:11 PM, Justin Martin 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 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/
  • Paul Dragoonis at Jan 24, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones wrote:

    On 01/24/2012 03:11 PM, Justin Martin 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 Martin
    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/


    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Matthew Fonda at Jan 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Paul Dragoonis wrote:
    On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones
    wrote:
    On 01/24/2012 03:11 PM, Justin Martin 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 Martin
    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 :-)
    I've felt this way for a long time. Big +1 on changing this.

    Cheers,
    --Matthew
  • Charlie Somerville at Jan 24, 2012 at 11:21 pm
    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 Wednesday, 25 January 2012 at 10:20 AM, Matthew Fonda wrote:
    On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Paul Dragoonis (mailto:dragoonis@gmail.com)> wrote:
    On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones
    (mailto:christopher.jones@oracle.com)> wrote:
    On 01/24/2012 03:11 PM, Justin Martin 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 Martin

    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 :-)

    I've felt this way for a long time. Big +1 on changing this.

    Cheers,
    --Matthew

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Christopher Jones at Jan 24, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    On 01/24/2012 03:21 PM, Charlie Somerville wrote:
    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/
  • Ferenc Kovacs at Jan 24, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martin 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 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
  • Rasmus Lerdorf at Jan 25, 2012 at 12:00 am

    On Jan 24, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martin 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 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)
  • Lester Caine at Jan 25, 2012 at 9:20 am

    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
  • Larry Garfield at Jan 25, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    On 1/24/12 5:47 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
    On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martinwrote:
    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
  • Pierre Joye at Jan 25, 2012 at 9:23 am
    hi Justin,

    I'm totally for that, has been asked it for years.

    Let see what other nicer status we need as wel :)

    Cheers,
    On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martin 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 Martin

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


    --
    Pierre

    @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
  • Gwynne Raskind at Jan 25, 2012 at 9:34 am

    On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 04:23, Pierre Joye wrote:
    hi Justin,

    I'm totally for that, has been asked it for years.

    Let see what other nicer status we need as wel :)

    Cheers,
    On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martin 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?
    Big +1 from me as well.
  • Rasmus Lerdorf at Jan 27, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    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

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupphp-internals @
categoriesphp
postedJan 24, '12 at 11:11p
activeJan 27, '12 at 8:02p
posts13
users12
websitephp.net

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase