[gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion: INVALID -> NOCHANGE in bugzilla

[Duncan]

Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> posted eu3rat$3ns$1@×××××××××.org,
excerpted below, on  Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:40:28 -0600:

> Marius Mauch wrote:
>> "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> whatever the original issue, no change is needed on our part to
>>> resolve the issue.
>>
>> _If_ it's changed then please to something else, NOCHANGE would overlap
>> with other values (WONTFIX, CANTFIX, WORKSFORME) and isn't that obvious
>> to me at least. A fake resolution that's mentioned on IRC from time to
>> time is NOTABUG which would fit better here.
>
> I like freedesktop.org's bugzilla, which has INVALID, NOTABUG and
> NOTOURBUG. ;)  But yeah, NOTABUG is used by a few different projects and
> seems to work.

As one who was offended when one of my first bugs got INVALIDated...

NOTABUG would have been better.  It may suffer some of the same issues, 
but is better, and at least here, wouldn't have the discouraging 
connotations due to the minor variation in meaning.  Invalid (to me) 
implies a judgement of the work of the submitter, while NOTABUG (to me) 
implies more a simple variance of opinion, recognizing the other 
viewpoint as possibly valid (not invalid), but simply choosing a 
different route, making a different choice.

After looking the word and a couple related words up in kdict and paying 
special attention to the thesaurus, I came up with a couple other 
suggestions as well:

NULL or VOID.

As with NOTABUG, these would imply (to me) more a choice to go a 
different way, as opposed to the implication that the opinion and/or work 
of the filer is INVALID.

I recognize that's a nuance of meaning that may not hold worldwide, and 
one or both of the above might be even worse to some people, but it seems 
to me that what we are really looking for is a way to "nullify" the bug, 
without implying the filer is a moron, and at least here, any of the 
three alternatives (NOTABUG, NULL, VOID) are less offensive than INVALID.

If the description of resolution could be specifically worded to mention 
we are NOT calling the work and/or opinion invalid, simply not choosing 
that viewpoint/solution at this point, it might help as well, especially 
if there's some way to cause the bug-mailing script to include the 
resolution definition in the mail, so it would be seen there, not just if 
someone went to the site.

What do others think of NULL or VOID vs. NOTABUG vs. INVALID?  
Personally, I'd lean toward NULL, as I think the computer-speak 
definition quite works, but for the non-dev-types, particularly of other 
cultures, it's entirely possible there's an even worse offensive 
connotation I'm not aware of.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list