The term artifacts

[micheas]

Is it possible to globally change the artifact to bug and artifacts to bugs?

Non standard terminology makes the clunky interface that is SourceForge even worse.

People report bugs, not artifacts.

[Boomzilla]

Actually people report bugs, raise enhancement requests and do lots of other things with trackers. SourceForge supports an unlimited number of trackers within a project. Each tracker is typically used for a single purpose: raising bugs i.e. "A bug tracker", raising enhancements requests i.e. "An enhancement tracker". Each tracker contains multiple entries (artifacts in our parlance). Changing "artifact" to bug would make the use of trackers for non-bug based activities nonsensical.

Col

[micheas]

Actually people report bugs, raise enhancement requests and do lots of other things with trackers. SourceForge supports an unlimited number of trackers within a project. Each tracker is typically used for a single purpose: raising bugs i.e. "A bug tracker", raising enhancements requests i.e. "An enhancement tracker". Each tracker contains multiple entries (artifacts in our parlance). Changing "artifact" to bug would make the use of trackers for non-bug based activities nonsensical.

Col

Nonsensical or not this is the lexicon used by other projects (Debian, Mozilla, FreeBSD, MySQl off the top of my head) to describe problem reports, and requests for features.

There is no place to "Report a Bug".  You can file an artifact which is obscure in the non-standard jargon of software development.

I have never reported an artifact before. This is very non-standard. The advanced tools may be here, but the basics are a long way off.

[philmoz]

Nonsensical or not this is the lexicon used by other projects (Debian, Mozilla, FreeBSD, MySQl off the top of my head) to describe problem reports, and requests for features.
There is no place to "Report a Bug".  You can file an artifact which is obscure in the non-standard jargon of software development.
I have never reported an artifact before. This is very non-standard. The advanced tools may be here, but the basics are a long way off.

I just checked my tracker... there is a link for bugs, and a link for feature requests. One would assume that by activating one of those links, one would expect to be taken to a place to enter my bug/request.
Would you rather the bug-tracker button text to say "Submit New Bug" instead of "Submit New Artifact" ? The fact that it currently doesn't explicitly tell me that the button labelled "Submit New Artifact" will, in fact, allow me to make a bug report, the path taken... pressing "Bugs" link, coupled with keyword "Submit" or even "Submit New", would give a damned good indication as to what to do next.

The lingo that is in use, is also very new for me as well, but I am coping (just), and I haven't dealt with any of those systems you mentioned above, so I am not suffering any 'conflict's, 'does not compute's, 'syntax error on button..', 'BSOD's, just lots of 'Wha...?? 's and 'eh??? 's with the occasional 'OOoohh'.

I have never reported an artifact before.

I am coming to understand an artifact as an issue report. That report contains the issue I wish to raise, be it a bug or feature request. So in that sense, you don't report an artifact.. you create one.
(wonder how close that would be to describe it??)

just some thoughts.

[micheas]

With this debate going on, I went over to sourceforge.net and started looking at sites hosted there.

Most large projects like sugarCMS and galeon use bugzilla or gforge instead of sourceforge for tracking bugs. phpmyadmin does use sourceforge for tracking bugs, but you never ever see the word artifact on their bug page, even though if you look at the URL you can see that you are looking at artifact ID's.

The same is true with Asterisk@Home You never see the word artifact on that page either.

Introducing the underlying code to the end user when it conveys nothing creates a barrier to entry for people that are willing to make small contributions.

I don't understand why the word artifact is present on the joomla site. It is NOT present on any other bug tracking site that I can find. Including at least a dozen hosted by sourceforge.

If we don't want to replace the word artifact with bug how about Request ID ? This is the terminology that source forge uses on their public facing website.

[Boomzilla]

When a project admin set's up a tracker for bug reporting, enhancement request processing they can name it whatever they like.
Example: https://developer.joomla.org/sf/tracker ... gs/tracker shows a tracker entitled "Report a bug".

The term "artifact" is a generic description for that which you may apply in many different ways to handle actionable items within SourceForge.

Perhaps we shall just agree to disagree on this point.

Col

[micheas]

The term "artifact" is a generic description for that which you may apply in many different ways to handle actionable items within SourceForge.

Perhaps we shall just agree to disagree on this point.

Col

That is fine for the backend project administrator.  But I looked at many other sourceforge, gforge, and bugzilla based websites, and never ever saw the word artifact except for on the Joomla site.

That implies that we are doing something non-standard.

A reason to use standard terms is the fact that sourceforge has, for all practical purposes, no searching features. This means that people have to rely on google or yahoo to search the site. so being as they are not on our site asking them to remember unusual terms makes life even worse.

[Boomzilla]

Re: "A reason to use standard terms is the fact that sourceforge has, for all practical purposes, no searching features"

Search on SourceForge is based on Lucene + the indexes the contents of files (document manager, attachements etc). It knows over 300 different binary file types.

When you say "for all practical purposes,[sourceforge has] no searching features" - what do you mean?

Col