4 ms·

> It's supposed to contain a list of known defects or it isn't. If it were just a list of defects, this discussion wouldn't have started. By "informational" I

> It's supposed to contain a list of known defects or it isn't. If it were just a list of defects, this discussion wouldn't have started. By "informational" I mean reporting that a bug exists. "When I do X, Y happens and Z should happen instead. You might like to know. Best wishes.". By the other kind, I mean asking for a solution. "When I do X, Y happens, please make Z happen instead. Await your prompt reply, Kthx". Often there's no way to tell which one is intended. A tick box to differentiate between "I'm just reporting this, I don't need the change" versus "I would find a solution useful" or even "can someone specifically help me find a solution" seems like it would be helpful. These are different kinds of bug report, and they all land in a typical GitHub-style or Bugzilla-style public issue tracker. The second kind are not defect reports, and we haven't even mentioned feature requests, which aren't defects at all. They land in the issue tracker as well. > You're strawmanning Hmm, maybe I should rephrase to clarify where the emphasis was intended: "If I submit a bug report and the maintainer replies thinking I wanted something from them, it would be silly for me to become infuriated because my effort seems wasted". That addresses the scenario in the comment I replied to, so not a straw man. > where people have responded in genuinely obnoxious Obnoxious is not in the comment I replied to. You've projected that. The maintainer in that scenario may have replied politely. The only issue under discussion was the submitter's reaction to a maintainer thinking the submitter wanted something. Are you sure you're not strawmanning and counterfactualising? > This is nuts. This can only be true if there are much, much bigger problems afoot. Well, it's true. Yes there are problems. That's why this discussion is taking place. Do you have solutions? > Most of this was figured out years ago and opened up to the public under Netscape. Folks abandoning or ignoring those lessons [...] And these lessons are? If you think it's nuts, it would be nice if you were to offer useful solutions. I was around when Netscape opened up. No solutions leap out to me arising from that, then or now. Netscape's own lessons appear to be about corporate management and control of projects. The vast majority of open source projects, especially those where people report feeling burdened, are run by unpaid people in their spare time (or when they should be sleeping), as one-person projects. Netscape's corporate strategy doesn't seem relevant here. (And ESR's "Cathedral and the Bazaar", which was related to Netscape's changes, doesn't provide a solution either.)

cxr 6y ago
> If it were just a list of defects, this discussion wouldn't have started. This makes for the second time this week I've run into someone stating the obvious and thinking that it makes for a point in their favor and not one against their end of the argument. > Obnoxious is not in the comment I replied to. You've projected that. The maintainer in that scenario may have been replied politely. The only issue under discussion was the submitter's reaction to a maintainer thinking the submitter wanted something. Are you sure you're not strawmanning and counterfactualising? Yes, I'm sure, and I don't really have time or the wherewithal to explain in depth to someone who's dead set against not understanding. "The maintainer in that scenario may have been replied politely" is simply not a move that's available to you. There is no "may" when we're discussing _actual_, _concrete_ events and not hypotheticals. (Even in the case of hypotheticals, it's a problem—counterfactuals are not an argument unless the argument it opposes employs the universal quantifier; failure to understand this is a failure to understand the difference between what it means to say "∃x" and what it means to say "∀x".) There is only what did or did not occur (or what is or is not posed). To repeat: it is not your job to imagine the most convenient circumstances that would weaken the side that you're arguing against. > And these lessons are? If you think it's nuts, it would be nice if you were to offer useful solutions. I've offered them. Go back and read my comments in this thread and you'll see them. Read your own comments—it'll suffice to read just what you've written in this one—and the solution follows naturally from the problem you describe. If it's so hard to discriminate between "informational bug reports" and support requests, then stop mixing them. If you're going to run a bugtracker, then run a bugtracker[1]. > Netscape's corporate strategy doesn't seem relevant here. You're right. So I don't know why you focused on it at length, as if you can talk your way into it being the thing that I was referring to. Once again, a move that's not available to you. 1. https://hyp.is/de25lAXAEeuhNEN0wan1Ww/news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24673650 https://hyp.is/de25lAXAEeuhNEN0wan1Ww/news.ycombinator.com/i...
- jlokier 6y ago
  I agree with some of your observations and ideas, btw. But I have to wipe the antagonism off my screen with a strong disinfectant to appreciate them. This comes to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24674099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24674099 > There is no "may" when we're discussing _actual_, _concrete_ events and not hypotheticals We're not. I replied to the comment I replied to, nothing else, and it describes a hypothetical, so the reply does too. > counterfactuals are not an argument unless the argument it opposes employs the universal quantifier; failure to understand this is a failure to understand the difference between what it means to say "∃x" and what it means to say "∀x". :eye-roll: My job is with theorem-proving software. You can show off knowledge of quantifiers but it's unlikely to impress. The specific comment I replied to (not the main discussion topic as you assumed) has the informal discourse equivalent of an implicit universal quantifier. > Netscape's corporate stratgy [...] I don't know why you focused on it [...] as if you can talk your way into it being the thing that I was referring to. You hand-waved vaguely about "Netscape" and "lessons", giving no direction as to what you meant while insinuating we should all know them. The lack of clue sounded like a communication choice, thus intentional shorthand for "you know what I mean". That leads a good-faith correspondent naturally to a speculative reply, to which you could politely respond with "no that's not what I meant, sorry for the ambiguity". I think it's unlikely you'll see that as rational, but it's how informal language works, otherwise it's questions all the way down.

cxr 6y ago

> If it were just a list of defects, this discussion wouldn't have started. This makes for the second time this week I've run into someone stating the obvious and thinking that it makes for a point in their favor and not one against their end of the argument. > Obnoxious is not in the comment I replied to. You've projected that. The maintainer in that scenario may have been replied politely. The only issue under discussion was the submitter's reaction to a maintainer thinking the submitter wanted something. Are you sure you're not strawmanning and counterfactualising? Yes, I'm sure, and I don't really have time or the wherewithal to explain in depth to someone who's dead set against not understanding. "The maintainer in that scenario may have been replied politely" is simply not a move that's available to you. There is no "may" when we're discussing _actual_, _concrete_ events and not hypotheticals. (Even in the case of hypotheticals, it's a problem—counterfactuals are not an argument unless the argument it opposes employs the universal quantifier; failure to understand this is a failure to understand the difference between what it means to say "∃x" and what it means to say "∀x".) There is only what did or did not occur (or what is or is not posed). To repeat: it is not your job to imagine the most convenient circumstances that would weaken the side that you're arguing against. > And these lessons are? If you think it's nuts, it would be nice if you were to offer useful solutions. I've offered them. Go back and read my comments in this thread and you'll see them. Read your own comments—it'll suffice to read just what you've written in this one—and the solution follows naturally from the problem you describe. If it's so hard to discriminate between "informational bug reports" and support requests, then stop mixing them. If you're going to run a bugtracker, then run a bugtracker[1]. > Netscape's corporate strategy doesn't seem relevant here. You're right. So I don't know why you focused on it at length, as if you can talk your way into it being the thing that I was referring to. Once again, a move that's not available to you. 1. https://hyp.is/de25lAXAEeuhNEN0wan1Ww/news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24673650 https://hyp.is/de25lAXAEeuhNEN0wan1Ww/news.ycombinator.com/i...

jlokier 6y ago
I agree with some of your observations and ideas, btw. But I have to wipe the antagonism off my screen with a strong disinfectant to appreciate them. This comes to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24674099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24674099 > There is no "may" when we're discussing _actual_, _concrete_ events and not hypotheticals We're not. I replied to the comment I replied to, nothing else, and it describes a hypothetical, so the reply does too. > counterfactuals are not an argument unless the argument it opposes employs the universal quantifier; failure to understand this is a failure to understand the difference between what it means to say "∃x" and what it means to say "∀x". :eye-roll: My job is with theorem-proving software. You can show off knowledge of quantifiers but it's unlikely to impress. The specific comment I replied to (not the main discussion topic as you assumed) has the informal discourse equivalent of an implicit universal quantifier. > Netscape's corporate stratgy [...] I don't know why you focused on it [...] as if you can talk your way into it being the thing that I was referring to. You hand-waved vaguely about "Netscape" and "lessons", giving no direction as to what you meant while insinuating we should all know them. The lack of clue sounded like a communication choice, thus intentional shorthand for "you know what I mean". That leads a good-faith correspondent naturally to a speculative reply, to which you could politely respond with "no that's not what I meant, sorry for the ambiguity". I think it's unlikely you'll see that as rational, but it's how informal language works, otherwise it's questions all the way down.