Re: dangerous handling of security bugs

On 15 July 2010 04:22, Dirk Haun <dirk@haun-online.de> wrote: > Am 13.07.2010 um 17:12 Uhr schrieb Ferenc Kovacs: >> it would be an interesting to check how many bugs were first marked as >> bogus then re-opened and fixed. > > I've been wondering for a while now if much of the emotional reaction to bugs being closed > as "bogus" is due to that very word. I mean, the reporter obviously put some work into the > bug report and the issue was apparently important enough for them to even bother opening a bug > report in the first place. And then, after all this effort, the verdict is that it's > "bogus". I've said it before on IRC, and I'll say it again here: I hate the bogus status. Hate it. With a firey passion. It comes with tonnes of connotations, and they're all bad. > Can't really think of a good alternative right now. But if a bug was closed with a more > neutral "can't reproduce", "works as designed" or something like that then > maybe there wouldn't be such strong reactions? I think we'd need more than one status to replace it. Mozilla have "invalid" and "works for me" (albeit as resolutions rather than statuses, since they separate them out), which seems to work well enough for them. Adam