Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure.
I know I'm coming in late on this one, but I can see how having a bug
marked as INVALID with
On Saturday 24 March 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a):
[snip]
See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a
bug, then it's not a bug. Don't invent confusing 'politically correct'
junk for this just because someone might feel 'offended'.
One issue is
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
I know I've seen many instances where the word INVALID has got
peoples hackles up, [...] This is the same issue I have with
NOTABUG - it's like saying, you're wrong, shouldn't have raised
the report, just perhaps not as in-your-face as INVALID.
Precisely. NOTABUG
On 2007/03/25, Benno Schulenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Precisely. NOTABUG sounds less harsh than INVALID (for some
just a little, for others a lot), it is less likely to irk people,
and it is also used elsewhere, so why not use it instead?
Not that i care that much, but imho INVALID
Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a):
Arguably no bug is invalid in the normal sense - if someone raises an
issue, they have an issue, regardless what we think of it. To that end
I'd like to propose bugzilla be reconfigured to use the phrase
NOCHANGE instead of INVALID. NOCHANGE would indicate that
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure.
Arguably no bug is invalid in the
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:34:21PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
Experience. We've all seen it many times, I'm sure.
But sometimes, just sometimes, the bugs are
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:14:38 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 18:34:21 +0100
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
Experience.
I think that there is a problem of concept. If a bug is marked INVALID,
it's because it is not a real bug. Marking a bug NOCHANGE or
NOCHANGEREQUIRED, not only overlaps with other resolutions, but fails to
better explain the reason why the bug was closed, whereas INVALID indeed
means that the
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:48:25 -0400
Michael Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 06:34:21PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
People reporting bugs often get annoyed when their bug is marked
INVALID; especially when they're relatively new to the Gentoo
Experience. We've all
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I have
with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same thing to
the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a frozen one).
Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not with the resolution
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to be
encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that the
marking INVALID is perceived, when there's no need to be so harsh.
And NOCHANGE
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:02:48 +0100
Ioannis Aslanidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that there is a problem of concept. If a bug is marked
INVALID, it's because it is not a real bug. Marking a bug NOCHANGE or
NOCHANGEREQUIRED, not only overlaps with other resolutions, but fails
to better
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:17:52 +0200
Alin Năstac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
The problem I have with NOTABUG is pretty much the same problem I
have with INVALID - it's not as severe, but it still does the same
thing to the user (i.e. slaps him with a wet fish rather than a
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:46:07 +0100
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100
Kevin F. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to
be encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that
the
Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a):
[snip]
See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a
bug, then it's not a bug. Don't invent confusing 'politically correct'
junk for this just because someone might feel 'offended'.
Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Jakub Moc
mailto:[EMAIL
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a):
[snip]
See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a
bug, then it's not a bug.
In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE?
Don't invent confusing 'politically correct'
junk
Christopher Sawtell napsal(a):
See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a
bug, then it's not a bug.
In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE?
And why use it? Anything else than 'so that we are 'politically
correct'? Sorry, this doesn't
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:05:02 +0100
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, so resolving 'INVALID' a bug for people that report crap like 'oh,
my sci-mathematics/*' thingy got horribly broken with -ffast-math'
causes an offense to them? Well, that's a good thing, maybe they'll
actually use their
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, so resolving 'INVALID' a bug for people that report crap like 'oh,
my sci-mathematics/*' thingy got horribly broken with -ffast-math'
causes an offense to them? Well, that's a good thing, maybe they'll
actually use their brain
Christopher Sawtell wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
Kevin F. Quinn napsal(a):
[snip]
See, I don't really care how the reporter feels, if something's not a
bug, then it's not a bug.
In which case it must be a feature, so why not use the keyword FEATURE?
Why would
21 matches
Mail list logo
