Talk:Software bug

message: The moth was definitely NOT the origin of the term bug.  If you read Grace Hopper's log carefully, you will see the following points:
1. She wrote "The first actual case of bug being found" which implies that at the time of the writing, they knew of many other cases of bugs that were not actual.
2. i.e. the term "bug" was in use before this moth was found.
3. If the term was really based on some kind of insects, then, this moth would not be first.
Kowloonese 21:13, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be where the word comes from - but a SOFTWARE bug is a very different matter.  Why is it "debugging" and not "error removal" or "problem solving"?  Where did the image of an insect as relating to a programming error come from originally?  Why a "bug" and not a "rat" or a "pimple" or a "bacterium"...why not some other imagery of an undesirable thing? SteveBaker (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NOT the moth

message: The date given for the Mark II moth is wrong.  It should be 1947, not 1945.  Note that in the first line of the quoted section, it says "n 1946, when Hopper was released from active duty...", yet in the last line of that quote it's saying 1945 -- the previous year!  Also, if you follow the link to the actual log page, it gives the date as 1947.
I've corrected this date. T-bonham 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The year is also wrong in the Description and Date in the page containing the image of the famous moth, :File:H96566k.jpg. These errors were apparently copied over from Wikimedia Commons. These also need to be fixed, but I don't see how to edit them. HairyWombat (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can the date be wrong? The written attribution is to 1945, but it is correctly identified in the article as being 1946. This is an example of a bad bug report: you don't identify where the date is indicated as being wrong, nor do you suggest what the correct date should be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: As I state, it is wrong in the Description and Date of :File:H96566k.jpg. These state 1945 and, as this article correctly points out, they should be 1947. I mentioned it here only because I can't see how to fix :File:H96566k.jpg and this page will have a lot more traffic than :File:H96566k.jpg. HairyWombat (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moth date is wrong

message: Just in case anyone wants an example of an earlier usage of the term bug, here's a quote from Edison:
"I have the right principle and am on the right track, but time, hard work and some good luck are necessary too. It has been just so in all of my inventions. The first step is an intuition, and comes with a burst, then difficulties arise -- this thing gives out and [it is] then that "Bugs" -- as such little faults and difficulties are called -- show themselves and months of intense watching, study and labor are requisite before commercial success or failure is certainly reached."
(Edison to Puskas, 13 November 1878, Edison papers, Edison National Laboratory, U.S. National Park Service, West Orange, N.J., cited in Thomas P. Hughes, American Genesis: A History of the American Genius for Invention, Penguin Books, 1989, on page 75) --Fastfission 10:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier usage

message: There are several references to bug in the modern sense in Victorian Internet by Tom Standage. probably where Edison came across it anyway, since he started out as a telegraph operator. I think this article ought to include at least a pointer to them...
: It would be great if you could give us a quote or two from the book. I don't have it myself. --Apoc2400 08:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: still earlier (than Edison's) usage

message: The explanation for the Mars Climate Orbiter mishap is wrong. It was not about confusing meters and yards. The quantity in question was impulse, not length. The report on the mishap states that the expected unit was Newton-seconds while the delivered data was pound-seconds. 
This does present a problem though because length is easy to grasp for the public while impulse is a fairly unknown quantity. The concept of meters/yards is well known, Newton-seconds isn't. 
Suggestion: let the text "failed to convert yards to meters" instead be: "failed to convert from imperial to metric units"
-- J-Star 22:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mars Climate Orbiter mishap

message: The link to MIM-104 Patriot indicates that the failure in Dharan was caused by a computer bug. There's no corresponding text in MIM-104 Patriot. If there's any support for this theory, it should be added to Patriot article. Otherwise the link should be deleted.---Isaac R 01:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles are now linked.  Search for "software error" in MIM-104 Patriot. - Bevo 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article says that 28 deaths were caused by the Patriot bug, but pedantically, weren't the deaths caused by a scud missile and the team responsible for firing it?  At worst, the Patriot system can be accused of ...through inaction allowing humans to be harmed...  Ojw 19:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriot "bug" 

message: "but open source software has the advantage of having a community of qualified developers to work on and improve software (and fix bugs)"
That is the fallacy of many eyes; that is, nobody really knows if the guy who worked on it really was qualified at all.  BS.
:Again, I removed it.  Don't put it back in without discussion here on the statement's validity. DoomBringer 18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be mentioned in terms of debugging or software testing. It's generally accepted that the more people test a piece of software, the more likely it is that a bug will be found (although no one says it's a linear function). --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullcrap 

message: I once heard that Shakespeare is supposedly the earliest recorded use of the 'bug' in this way.  Can anyone confirm if this is true?
TheOddMan
In "Writing the laboratory Notebook" (), the author Howard Kanare also relates the moth story and says: "The term bug was already in common use to connote problems in electrical and mechanical systems before this time. It came from the Welsh term bwg, meaning a bugbear or hobgoblin."
sblatt
This needs a little editing.  Under "Etymology", the sentence "Problems with radar electronics during World War II were referred to as bugs (or glitches), and there is additional evidence that the usage dates back much earlier" follows an example of an earlier usage.  Move this up to show a reverse chronolgy and it will read easier.  I'll leave this to the editors.  Greenbomb101 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even Earlier? 

message: If a bug is something in software that causes a program to run incorrectly, why is this page at "computer bug" instead of "software bug"?  "Computer bug" seems to imply there is something wrong with the hardware, not the software running on it.  What does everyone else think? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, since this article seems to be about coding errors, not hardware malfunctions (except for the real bug, but that's an anecdote). Shinobu 00:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer vs. Software Bug

message: I added a bullet on programming style under the "Prevention" section.
Good programming style is after all our first line of defence, and typos are the first and I strongly suspect, the most common cause of bugs. I feel that the role played by uncaught typos doing things like throwing off the program flow is somewhat underplayed elsewhere on the page - they aren't mentioned at all in the "types of bugs" section, for instance. All the bugs listed are methodological bugs: flaws in the reasoning of the programmer, rather than in his fingers.
However, while these are critical concepts in programming, I'm unsure if that section should be there, or if it should just be a brief mention here, and a new section created in programming style, called something like "bug avoidance". Or link to defensive programming and bulk up the [potential bugs] section? Thoughts?
DewiMorgan 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end I greatly reduced the programming style section that I added here right down, and added links to programming style and defensive programming. I will stick the bulk of the stuff I previously added here to the "programming style" page, and probably add a note to "defensive programming" page too. DewiMorgan 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added section on programming style

message: Code analysis and even compiling was overlooked as a bug prevention tools. IMHO exception handling happens at runtime and therefore is not prevention.
203.20.238.2 (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Added code analysis on prevention

message: Buffer overflow was listed three times with different wording. Please don't add to this unless you have written code.  I agree there should be a section for known bugs,  because this tiny list is just the tip of the ice burg.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.216.47 (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done --JonnyJD 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nicely done! DewiMorgan 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks this now I know what bugs are --Andersmusician $ 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Bugs 

message: I think this article needs to list "Status" of bugs, which are provided by bugzilla and other bug reporting software.
* Blocker
* Major
* Minor
* Trivial
* Enhancement
Is a short list. Explanations should be added for each as well. --99.154.3.248 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug Statuses 

message: The book "THE STANDARD ELECTRICAL DICTIONARY"
by T. O'CONOR SLOANE, published in 1892 contains these two entries:
Bug. 
Any fault or trouble in the connections or working of electric apparatus. 
Bug Trap. 
A connection or arrangement for overcoming a "bug." 
It is said that the terms "bug" and "bug trap" originated in quadruplex telegraphy.
These do not predate the 1878 Edison quote, but they do indicate the term was in widespread use by 1892.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drifter99 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bug" defined in 1892. 

message: Doesn't validate under XHTML 1.0 Transitional DocType due to an ID misnaming error. --69.125.25.190 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article validates fine. However, the Talk page doesn't. To be honest, this is not something I am going to lose sleep over. HairyWombat (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Later. Reported it to Bugzilla. HairyWombat (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug on the bug page 

message: The link to "Bug Tracking Basics: A beginner’s guide to reporting and tracking defects (Mitch Allen)" merely leads to a book store. The link does not provide any further information on the topic itself.--213.39.136.30 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you going on about? The link takes you to StickyMinds, which is not a bookstore, it's a software testing and development portal. When I added the link, the article was available to all registered users. It's now PowerPass user-content. If you have May/Jun 2002 (Vol. 4, Issue 3) edition of Better Software magazine, as I do, you can also read it. It's not SPAM, and you don't have a user account. Get one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAM link 

message: This terminology, "Mistake metamorphism," may well be appropriate, but is not particularly an accepted term.  This author cites his own publication as a reference.  If the term is accepted by further citation of this authors work, then it may be a appropriate section of this article.  Otherwise this section should be deleted. Softtest123 (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deletion, and will delete it.  JW |||  Talk 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold off on that deletion because I have found some indication that "Mistake metamorphism" may be a term previously published and possibly copied here. I don't have a copy of Ian Sommerville's Software Engineering (9th Edition) where I think this was copied from. This is a short quote and may be "fair use" if properly cited. Softtest123 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I'd also vote for deletion; even if previously published (which I have no evidence for) the term isn't even remotely common and the section does not seem to add any value.  Worse, it give the impression that there is some sort of overarching synthesis relating a laundry list of terms without giving the faintest indication what that might be.  It's the sort of word salad that just screams "spam!".  MarkusQ (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you checked Summerville 9th Ed?  I would consider this a relevant authority for inclusion if properly cited; otherwise I agree.  As I mentioned, I don't have access to Summerville. Softtest123 (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake metamorphism 

message: I don't generally edit wikipedia so I'm just leaving a note here for those who might consider making a decision, but poking around the web on the history of the "computer bug" terminology and the story of the moth in the Mark II I found a source claiming that the notation "First actual case of bug being found" was actually added to the logbook considerably later than 1947, probably in 1979. I have no idea of the reliability of the source, but this interview with the Dahlgren Navy Base retiree who eventually gave the logbook to the Smithsonian claims that the note was added to clarify the historical record at the request of Ralph Niemann, head of the Strategic Systems Department at Dahlgren and one of the mathematicians who originally accompanied the Mark II to the naval base. http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2012/052012/05242012/701244  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.65.74 (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First actual case of bug being found" later addition to logbook? 

message: In my opinion, there is a difference between defects and bugs. A defect is a failure in a system to meet certain requirements (whether they are non-existing in a system, or bugged and don't perform like they should), while a bug is more specific the failure of existing features, and can't be used to describe the absence of a feature. Yet many pages link to this Software Bug page, while the meaning is actually a defect.
Examples of such pages are the pages describing bug tracking systems, like Mantis.
I think it would be good to create a defect page, to prevent a loss of information (or even giving a wrong impression that a defect is equal to a bug) when linking from pages describing a defect.
Please let me know if you think this definition I provided is wrong, I found a bug defined both as 'a defect in software'(dictionaries) and a 'error or fault in software' (this article defines it like this), the latter supporting this suggestion, the former contradicting it. Maybe we should first clearly define what we consider a bug, keeping in mind above suggested change, then talk about this change afterwards.
213.224.2.142 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinion. They're not different according to reliable sources. If you can provide a reliable source to support your opinion, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would the IEEE Computer Society Software Engineering Body of Knowledge be considered a "reliable source"?  This carefully differentiates a "defect" or "fault", which is what is wrong with the program, the "error", which is the departure of the computation from the correct result and a "failure", which is the observable outcome that differs from the stated intent.  In my experience, the use of the ill-defined term "bug" indicates that the speaker / writer has a poor understanding of software quality and at best jumbles these concepts up together and at worst wants to create the impression that bugs are inevitable so let's not go looking for root cause.  I think it's shameful that Wikipedia even has a page on "Software bug". 96.89.230.33 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would, but in my experience, the use of the over-defined terms indicates that the speaker is being overly pedantic rather than trying to communicate ideas, but yes a link to the IEEE glossary would be acceptable. And for the record, Wikipedia tends to use WP:COMMONNAMEs wherever possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Defect vs Software Bug 

message: I just heard a bug reference in the movie - Edison, The Man (1940) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edison,_The_Man - towards the end of the movie when Edison determines that his two dynamos have a problem because the speed governors were not synced until he mechanically linked them. 
His first erroneous attempt caused the dynamos to act as a motor/generator combo until the governors were mechanically linked. He wanted the dynamos to work as parallel generators. In the movie, Spencer Tracy distinctly used the term "bugs" for this problem when he first attempted to light up New York City.
Granted, this is a movie. But the term "bug" was obviously used during Edison's invention period for mechanical design issues that needed to be resolved and thus included in the movie. Re-quoting the previous Edison quote - ["Bugs" — as such little faults and difficulties are called]. And the movie itself is from 1940, which is earlier than when it was first used for software. It seems likely that "bugs" was an engineering term before it made it into software.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.8.211 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. We already have a source that supports Edison's use of the term in 1878. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edison Movie reference - 1940 

message: Hi, I am currently overviewing a bug tracker (mantis) for the software project I am a community manager for. We are discussing setting up a triage system. We use MantisBT. I really needed info on this but the wiki area for it is prettey bad and has two warnings also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug#Bug_management 
I would like to work on this, is anyone free in the next few days to pull something together colabaritivley? We could use my project IRC to meet, or something else.
Thanks
Anna  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Missannafjmorris (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug triage section - can we work on this as a group to improve it this week? 

message: The bug tracking section seems to have morphed over time to include issue tracking content. Both JIRA with the JIRA Agile plug-in and Bugzilla with several different Agile plug-ins, listed here, allow the addition of user stories and even epics to pure defect tracking tools. I see no need to exclude that information and pass them off as generic "issue tracking" tools. While they're not bugs, they're in bug tracking software. They're also not issues either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need the JIRA Agile plugin or a Bugzilla agile plugin to track non-bugs in JIRA or Bugzilla. In JIRA they are just different types of issues (so JIRA is an issue-tracking system), and in Bugzilla and other "bug trackers", they can be given a severity of "enhancement". If you look at the JIRA article, you will see that it is described as an issue-tracking system in the lead, not as a bug-tracking system. The article Issue tracking system gives the impression that issue tracking systems are mainly used for tracking support tickets. However, in the context of software development projects, that's obviously not true.--greenrd (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug tracking versus issue tracking 

message: Is it really necessary for both references to 2001: A Space Odyssey to mention the year (1968)? It's well-known that the novel and movie script were written concurrently, with feedback in both directions, so surely giving the year in both cases is redundant. — Korax1214 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I'd guess that more than 90% of people reading this article will not know that piece of information. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''2001'' reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Software bug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A software bug is an error, flaw, failure or fault in a computer program or system that causes it to produce an incorrect or unexpected result, or to behave in unintended ways. Most bugs arise from defects in a program's source code, its design, or in components and operating systems used by such programs. Defects arise from mistakes, errors, and oversights during the process software development or system deployment. Some bugs arise from the tooling used to create the software, such as compiler defects leading to incorrect code generation. A program that contains a large number of bugs, and/or bugs that seriously interfere with its functionality, is said to be buggy (defective).
All serious software developers know in their heart of hearts that the word "bug" is an industry-standard euphemism, and always has been.  I was joking with my wife that Freud also had a theory of software defects, but considered it too contentious to discuss in public. The reason "bug" is a euphemism is that it invokes two metaphorical frames: The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men, / Gang aft agley, and Whac-a-Mole anthill culture, which somehow software developers like to imagine (ego defense) as some kind of glorious OODA loop, notwithstanding the curse of dimensionality (note how the machine learning people actually talk about the CoD as a real thing; it sure helps that recurrent neural network bypass about what actually amounts to "correct" (the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for the fragile ego). 
Those who actually take eliminating defects seriously (validation and proof communities) prefer the term "defect" over "bug".  To put this on a highly reductive footing: functional programming has defects (a steady trickle), while imperative programming has bugs (in copious flow).  
In my mind, contrary to the founding metaphor bugs mainly arise from defects (no, I'm including in the category of software defects neither lack of a better screen door, nor an adhesive duck deficiency). To my mind, a bug is a defect on the hoof.  In imperative programming, one engages in wild, out-of-control hay rides around the haystack full of needles far more often than in functional programming (whereas in functional programming, one declares at mid-morning coffee break, "well, that's a wrap for program correctness; damn shame about the wall clock"). 
I realize this page is called "software bug", but we all know (since Brazil at least) that this is largely a historical in-joke.  These were always defects, in the same way that proofs have flaws, but not bugs (some of these 'flaws' persisted for centuries, for example, as mathematicians were slow to realize that Euclidean geometry had come to a permanent fork in the road; physics is even more prone to bugs/defects/flaws that are closer to wailing walls than any of the aforementioned terms—see renormalization and quantum gravity). If we were going to map software engineering onto geometry, defects would be the Euclidean geometry, and bugs would be the non-Euclidean geometry (ascendance of the "bug" terminology notwithstanding). 
 
So my larger point is that we shouldn't let an accidental nomenclature shift the balance of this article more than necessary. The defect exists in the artifact, and the bug exists in the system of the artefact (whether this is the system of its specification, the system of its construction, or the system of its subsequent behaviour).  The vast majority of bugs arise from tangible defects of workmanship.  
I noodled on the lead thinking I could address this quickly, but then I thought I didn't want to post that change live, so I decided instead to abandon my noodle to the talk page of posterity. 
Bottom line: is this a dictionary or an encyclopedia?  You be the judge. — MaxEnt 19:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it requires verifiable sources to make changes. Feel free to include those. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

text: After careful consideration I think the best way to describe my response to your lengthy note is: huh? Stevebroshar (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The static view 

message: :WP:V does not state that everything must have a reference. It states that "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". That is followed up with "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." And later yet, that you should try to fins a source for the material. Did you do that? I found multiple on my first search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiablity is not the same as must be referenced 

message: I agree with the removal of the bugs as they were unsourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that they were unsourced, although, to be fair, none of the "in popular culture" bugs, even the valid ones, are sourced as well as they should be, if they're sourced at all. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remove them all then per :WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of unsourced "bugs" 

message: The section  contains the following sentence:
:The 2012 stock trading disruption involved one such incompatibility between the old API and a new API.
Reading the section, I think there is some text missing. I don't see how the Year 2000 problem that the preceding sentence in the section talks about can be seen as an incompatibility between APIs. –Tea2min (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be :WP:BOLD and fix or remove the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The 2012 stock trading disruption involved one such incompatibility between the old API and a new API." What incompatibility? 

message: I'd like to add the paragraph bellow in the implications.
Since I'm involved in the research, I write it here first to see that it is written in objective way. I'll be happy to receive feedback.
Other than the damage caused by bugs, some of their cost is due to the effort invested in fixing them.
Lientz and al. showed in 1978 that the median of projects invest 17% of the development effort in bug fixing.
In a research in 2020 on GitHub repositories showed the nowadays the median is 20%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APH (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. There were a few problems, but I fixed it a bit. I'm not sure placing the two sections beside each other is correct though. The first is, I assume, metrics from commercial software and the latter is from open-source. Also, the approaches to development and reviewing code is likely different. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your feedback and help. It is indeed a bit hard to compare. The earlier work is from more than 40 years ago, based on a survey of estimations in 17 projects. A lot can change. However, as far as I know there are no other such estimations in the literature. Since the results are relatively close, they show that bug probability is robust to such drastic changes. APH 18:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effort invested in bugs 

message: This is the discussion point for the merge proposal of Known error into the Software bug#Bug management section. The request was made in March 2021 by user . Please provide your feedback on supporting / opposing the proposal, and any action items.  - Jay (Talk) 14:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * do you have any further input on this? ~Kvng (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * No. I am opposed to the merge because the other article is fine. You made the proposal and no one supports the merger. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal of [[Known error]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Bug scrub. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 17#Bug scrub until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   - Jay (Talk) 19:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see the related additions, redirect and reverts discussion at User talk:Bwrs#Bug scrub.  - Jay (Talk) 19:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now we just need to include the other definitions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the "bug triage" equivalent meaning at the Bug management section, and the "known error" meaning at the Software releases sub-section. I have not added the equivalent of "where bugs that may affect customers or clients are told to those clients only." If there is a reliable source, I can add it or  can.  Jay (Talk) 07:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's great, but the section you want redirected to does not contain those and readers new to the topic will place extra weight on this one definition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut it again. These terms are not widely used and I found the sourcing to be quite weak. - MrOllie (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. "Bug scrub" is the least common term. It has several, very loose definitions with little agreement on what constitutes a bug scrub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text:   which terms? Bug scrub or bug triage? Are you saying that "bug triage" with 200,000 Google search results is not a widely used term?  Jay (Talk) 16:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , 'Scrub' is basically unknown. Triage is a bit better, but still isn't anywhere near as common as 'bug review' or 'bug review meeting', which is probably what most software developers who engage in that process would call it. We can add any number of common English words before or after 'bug' and get google hits, that doesn't mean that these combinations necessarily form a distinct term that we need to define in this article. Management teams in all sorts of fields hold regular meetings to decide on short term priorities, there is not really anything unique about this process when it comes to fixing bugs. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  In common usage, triages occur to assess new bugs while reviews occur later in a development cycle, although they can be used for the initial stage as well. Scrub is likely the least common because it can mean different things. Might as well list bug bash and bug hunt while we're at it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text:   I had added content about bug triage separately from bug scrub, but when you removed it, you removed it all. Let me know what is your minimum criteria to include bug triage in the article, and I will fulfil that.  Jay (Talk) 06:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was no response. I added triage back, and added another reference.  Jay (Talk) 16:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bug scrub" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Where the term "Computer bug" originated from and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Where the term "Computer bug" originated from until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Where the term "Computer bug" originated from" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Bug/Glitch and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Bug/Glitch until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bug/Glitch" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Steps To Reproduce and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Steps To Reproduce until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Steps To Reproduce" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Pc errors and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Pc errors until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pc errors" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Do we really need to use the word "bug"? What's wrong with the word "error"? I am a programmer but I never use the word "bug", and somehow other programmers understand me, and don't laugh at me. Some of them even started using the word "error". 85.193.208.36 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: um. ok. error. (almost) everyone else calls them bugs. ... Joking aside do you have a phobia of bugs? That's legitimate and unfortunate, but I and most people don't think it's disgusting. ... If I worked with you I would try not to say it to you, but asking the world to change is presumptuous.Stevebroshar (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgusting word