| 1 |
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:46:07 +0100 |
| 2 |
Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:07:08 +0100 |
| 5 |
> "Kevin F. Quinn" <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Certainly good explanations as to why a bug is being closed are to |
| 8 |
> > be encouraged. My issue isn't with that - it's with the way that |
| 9 |
> > the marking INVALID is perceived, when there's no need to be so |
| 10 |
> > harsh. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> And NOCHANGE could be perceived as "We're not going to change this |
| 13 |
> anyway", |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, that would be WONTFIX (or CANTFIX). NOCHANGE implies there is |
| 16 |
nothing wrong with the existing code, so there's no question of whether |
| 17 |
we should change anything or not. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> so you're not really solving any problem by just changing a |
| 20 |
> label. Some people will only ever be happy if they get the FIXED |
| 21 |
> label on their reports. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm not sure that's so. There are certainly many who don't like |
| 24 |
their reports marked INVALID, at least initially. I know I've seen many |
| 25 |
instances where the word INVALID has got peoples hackles up, yet after |
| 26 |
it's explained that it doesn't imply they shouldn't have raised the |
| 27 |
report in the first place, they're ok (I've explained to people before |
| 28 |
that the INVALID marking just indicates that there's no change required |
| 29 |
to the tree). This is the same issue I have with "NOTABUG" - it's like |
| 30 |
saying, "you're wrong, shouldn't have raised the report", just perhaps |
| 31 |
not as in-your-face as INVALID. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Still, it looks like I'm being out-gunned on this one, and I'm |
| 35 |
starting to repeat myself, so I'll be quiet for a bit... |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives