Timeline for Bug report closed as duplicate; how to handle now?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2015 at 20:51 | comment | added | apaul | @Servy I get the feeling that jww understands the issue, I think he's just stirring the pot for dramatic effect... | |
| May 11, 2015 at 20:46 | comment | added | Servy | @jww You mean the question that specifically told you it wasn't a bug, that if you wanted the feature added you should post a feature request, and that you've completely disregarded and pretended it has validated the bug anyway because... (and this is where I'm failing, can you help me out here with why you're ignoring everything the answer is saying and assuming it's saying the opposite of what it's actually saying, because I'm just not seeing it?) | |
| May 11, 2015 at 20:43 | comment | added | user173448 | @Servy - "Even though you've been told the oppose by literally everyone you've interacted with" - that's a whopping two people here. Plus, the question was asked and addressed elsewhere, not here. You're just bike shedding here. If you don't like the result, you should visit the question that affirmed the bug. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 20:27 | comment | added | Servy | @jww Even though you've been told the oppose by literally everyone you've interacted with, including those in a position to comment specifically on the intentions of the design of the feature? So, what, you think they were just lying when they said that the feature is working as designed? It seems like you're someone who defines a "bug" as "A feature that I personally would want implemented" and a "feature request" as "a feature that I personally wouldn't want implemented"; that's just not how others use those terms. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 20:21 | comment | added | user173448 | @Servy - "The fact that you don't like the response to your question doesn't make it off topic" - I'm very satisfied the policy is not/was not in place and its a site mistake. I don't know why you insist on claiming its a feature request. God, I hope I never use any software you develop... Legitimate bugs closed as feature request.... Sigh.... | |
| May 11, 2015 at 18:58 | comment | added | Servy | @jww The fact that you don't like the response to your question doesn't make it off topic. You were asking what to do about a situation where a feature request was closed as a duplicate of another feature request (where both were requesting the same feature) and where the duplicate question was mis-tagged as a bug. The resolution to that problem, as you've been told, is to not mis-tag the bug as a feature request (or to ignore the incorrect tag, if you really want). The fact that you don't like that doesn't make it off topic. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 18:56 | comment | added | Servy | @jww No, it doesn't meet the site's definition of a bug. The feature is not malfunctioning. It's working as it was designed to work. Animuson (Is it really that hard to spell his name properly, or mine, for that matter?) did not say that the functionality is a bug. He said that the implementations of features always have room for improvement, so if you would like to propose new features to improve the site's functionality, you can. How can you possibly interpret that as him acknowledging that the implementation isn't functioning as it's intended? | |
| May 11, 2015 at 18:24 | comment | added | user173448 | @Sevy, here we go again... "the issue is you posted a feature request as a bug report..." - no, its not. It meets the definition of a bug according to the site. And Amunission stated it was overlooked and a bug in the implementation. If you feel the definition of a bug is not correct, then you should petition to change it. If you feel its not a bug, then you should take it up at the question that probed these issues. That's a separate question I asked to ensure I understood what was going on. And stop wasting time on this thread. What is the major malfunction in keeping things on-topic??? | |
| May 11, 2015 at 17:50 | comment | added | Servy | @jww As for us not discussing the issue, the issue is you posted a feature request as a bug report, and it was closed as a duplicate of a discussion and a feature request, which you have a problem with as they weren't bug reports. As for a resolution, it's simple, retag the feature request that was mistagged as a bug request to a feature request; problem solved. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 17:46 | comment | added | Servy | @jww animuson didn't that the feature was intended to be implemented as you would like to be but that implementation is malfunctioning, so your assertion that he is claiming it's not working as intended is just wrong; he said that the way SE implements things isn't always ideal, so if you see how an implementation could be improved from SE's original design, you can propose a feature request to discuss it. His answer is completely in line with my last comment. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 17:39 | comment | added | user173448 | @Servy - "Something implemented differently than the author's intended is buggy..." - right. Please see Amunission's acknowledgement that it was not implemented correctly. Which leads me to: what are we discussing here? Are we discussing the "expected outcome and procedures" as asked in the question? Or are we rehashing this same irrelevant points, like when a bug is not a bug because X wants to disregard the site's definition of a bug and argue otherwise? Why is it so difficult to keep discussions focused and on-topic? This is a pandemic problem here. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 17:32 | comment | added | Servy | @jww Something being implemented differently from the way you would like it to be isn't buggy. Something implemented differently than the author's intended is buggy. You just wanting a feature to function differently than SE does, is a feature request, specifically the feature to restrict stack snippets from being allowed in certain places. If you want that feature to be considered, you can propose a feature request for it. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 16:54 | comment | added | user173448 | No, I don't want the stack-snippet feature added (it already exists); and I don't want a feature added to stack-snippet (its features are fine). I'd like to ensure the buggy implementation of stack-snippets be fixed. Its not clear to me that's going to occur based on the events surrounding the bug report. Hence the reason I am asking about the outcomes and procedures. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 16:49 | comment | added | apaul | @jww Are you requesting a that a feature be added to Stack Snippet, or do you believe that the SE developers had intended to block certain languages and failed to do so? | |
| May 11, 2015 at 16:42 | comment | added | user173448 | Perfect, thanks. Then its a bug (if I am reading your response correctly). So this goes to the heart of the procedure question asked above: the discussions were misclassified (and remain so). The bug report was classified correctly but now its closed. So what are the steps to (1) ensure the site has an accurate report; (2) ensure the site has an actionable item; and (3) ensure the bug is fixed (or declined)? That's what this question is about... | |
| May 11, 2015 at 16:37 | comment | added | apaul | Feature missing = feature request. Feature broken = bug. | |
| May 11, 2015 at 16:31 | comment | added | user173448 | So its clear: the feature exists already. The feature was not implemented correctly. So Its not clear to me how a broken feature is itself a feature request, and not a bug. Especially since its runs afoul with the site's definition of bug. Can you explain it to dull folks like me? | |
| May 11, 2015 at 16:28 | history | answered | apaul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |