That wider definition sounds good to me. IMO a project is well served by considering a wide variety of flaws, defects, etc, as bugs that could be fixed. Even performance issues could count as bugs if they are 'surprising' enough.
BTW, I'd definitely consider the hypothetical situation you brought up as a bug too, since ZK reconnects aren't totally transparent to the user. Excessive reconnects could manifest in user-visible ways like spam in log files or higher-than-expected latency. On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:53 AM Roman Leventov <leventov...@gmail.com> wrote: > Then the definition should be even wider: there are many situations when > there is only potential for user-visible bad behavior. The classic > situation when a bug is masked by another bug. The fact that the first bug > is not exposed (yet) is not a reason to not call it a bug. > > Also, there are internal bugs - leading to faulty intra-cluster behavior > which may be mitigated by some cluster's redundancy mechanisms. Like a bug > in the ZK configuration which leads to frequent reconnects, which doesn't, > however, lead to anything visible by a Druid user nor operator (note: the > situation is made up). This could have been called "improvement" unless it > was caused by a programming mistake. I would not call anything which is > caused by a programming mistake a mere "improvement", it's always a "bug" > for me. > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 08:08, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I think it'd be ok to call those examples bugs. In professional > programming > > contexts I've always used 'bug' in a wide sense, meaning any sort of flaw > > or issue in a system that causes user-visible bad behavior. It could be a > > programming mistake, a design flaw, or even a problem with a dependency. > > (Conversely, if there's no user-visible bad behavior, I wouldn't call it > a > > bug; maybe it'd be an improvement.) > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:51 AM Roman Leventov <leven...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > There have been many times, and several in the last few days ( > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/8291, > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/8263) when I wanted > to > > > label an issue as 'bug' but the semantics of the word "bug" don't > really > > > apply. For me, "bug" means "somebody made a programming mistake at some > > > point". This doesn't apply to the issues linked above. I would say > about > > > them "the system, as it is currently implemented, fails (or may fail) > > under > > > certain circumstances and shall be improved". PRs which would fix these > > > issues shall be labelled 'Improvement'. > > > > > > I think renaming 'bug' into 'defect' would be useful to broaden the > > > applicability of the label. > > > > > >
