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
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:
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 frozenf...@php.net wrote:
Hello,
With some frequency, I find bugs which are not bogus, so much as they are
reported based
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 04:23, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com 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 frozenf...@php.net wrote:
Hello,
With some
On 1/24/12 5:47 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martinfrozenf...@php.net 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
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
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
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@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
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Paul Dragoonis dragoo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Christopher Jones
christopher.jo...@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
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
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
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martin frozenf...@php.net 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
On Jan 24, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Ferenc Kovacs tyr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Justin Martin frozenf...@php.net 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
