GNU bug report logs - #1477
23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear

Previous Next

Full log

Message #29 received at 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen'" <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 1477 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: RE: bug#1477: 23.0.60; Customize "not marked HIDDEN" is unclear
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 15:25:32 -0700

> > It should have simply been closed, which records it as a _bug_ that
> > has been _fixed_.  It should not have been recorded as `notabug'.
> 
> I thought "fixed" was if it was fixed as a result of the bug 
> report, and "notabug" was if it turned out (when investigated)
> that the report reported something that wasn't a bug (ever or still).

That would be "not reproducible", I think.

To me, "not reproducible" refers to the time when you try to reproduce it.  In
other software you would also be trying to reproduce it using the same version
as the report, but that's another story.

To me, "not a bug" means that you _can_ reproduce the behavior as reported, and
it is the intended intended behavior.

I'm no expert on this.  And it's not a big deal - certainly not important for
this bug report.  It might be good to know what the designers of this bug system
had in mind, however.

> Perhaps we need a third flag, like
> "probablyabugatthetimeitwasreportedbutnotabugwhensomeonelooked
> atthebugreport"?

We can't really guess what might have been at the time.  We can only compare
what we test now with what was reported.

But in a case like this one, we could perhaps believe the OP who tested both
earlier and later, if he says it was fixed. ;-)
 
> Or perhaps just close it without a flag.  Opinions?

Is there a "not reproducible" category?  If so, I'd think that would be the
closest in a case like this.  Just one, non-expert opinion.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.