Re: dangerous handling of security bugs

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 14 July 2010 03:22:30 pm Dirk Haun 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". >> >> 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? >> >> Just an observation from the side lines ... > > I'd have to agree.  "Bugus" has an implication of "fake".  As in, > the > submitter faked a bug report.  That is rarely the intent, I'm sure. > > For the Drupal project (which I work on), our "no" issue statuses are "by > design", "postponed", and "won't fix".  (And of course > duplicate.)  I sometimes > wonder if "won't fix" is even too negative sounding. > > It's amazing what a little wording can mean, especially to new contributors. I fully agree. I'm one of the persons willing to kill this status. For "won't fix" I was thinking about "can't fix" instead (same result but w/explanations). -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org