Re: Re: #21659 [Com]: sprintf

Agreed, on second thoughts those weren't terribly great example choices. I'm just coming from the point of view that you're generally better off not alienating someone for posting a bug before they've had their caffeine injection as they may in the future discover a legitimate bug which would be usefully reported. I certainly agree that the report is "Bogus", it's just the terminology I was questioning. I suppose it's a culture thing, but the "bogus" status sounds rather harsh/rude to me (from the UK) even though I know its never (generally ;) intended to be. Even something like "Invalid" sounds better. Guess it's just a personal preference. I'll go back to my lurking now :) adamw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ilia A." <ilia@prohost.org> To: "Adam Wright" <adam@elysium.ltd.uk>; <php-dev@lists.php.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: #21659 [Com]: sprintf > On January 15, 2003 10:27 am, Adam Wright wrote: > > Last ditch effort of "NotAPHPBug"? ;) > > This too may not be a correct solution all the time. Consider 75th duplicate > report of an invalid or even a resolved bug report. It may have been a bug at > some point, but certainly is not anymore. It is bogus, because the user chose > not to search in the bug database for similar reports before posting their > report. Surely you can agree that such a report is bogus. > I suppose we could introduce a dozen different more 'friendly' statuses to > replace the existing bogus status, but why? Surely not for the purpose of > making users who don't do the necessary research before posting their bug > reports feel better about themselves. > > Ilia > > -- > PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >