Shall we use other term than "defects" in the reports? #193
Comments
|
The Product Security team at Red Hat tends to call them findings. @siteshwar @lzaoral Would it make sense to use this term upstream as well? |
Sure, why not. I don't have a strong opinion about this. |
I was thinking about the term "Possible bugs", but I do not have a strong opinion either. |
|
FYI, from my pov as a maintainer, I dislike any terminology that suggests the reported items are flaws in my projects. Given the well known high false positive rates, it is defamatory to the reputation of the project to suggest they are bugs, defects or flaws, until a human has weeded out the false positives. "Findings" is a reasonable term that doesn't pre-suppose whether the identified items are bugs or not. |
... instead of "defect" in the reports. Resolves: csutils#193 Signed-off-by: Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht@redhat.com>
... instead of "defect" in the reports. Resolves: csutils#193 Signed-off-by: Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht@redhat.com>
... instead of "defect" in the reports. Resolves: csutils#193 Signed-off-by: Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht@redhat.com>
... instead of "defect" in the reports. Resolves: csutils#193 Signed-off-by: Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht@redhat.com>
... instead of "defect" in the reports. Resolves: #193 Signed-off-by: Siteshwar Vashisht <svashisht@redhat.com>
This is a follow up on fedora-devel comment.
Not all code paths identified to contain possible bugs may be real bugs. There is objection on the use of term "defects" and "flaws" for such code paths. This issue tracks using more appropriate term for such code paths.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: