in reply to Re^10: regexp class (no bugs)
in thread re: regexp class
I'm with JavaFan on this one. If a product is alleged to have feature X and it doesn't, that's a bug. But I think there is some grey area, due to the vagueness of "alleged". On one hand, if the feature set was defined up front, based on specifications from a "customer", and the delivered product doesn't implement one of those features, that's a bug. OTOH, if it's some kind of commercial product, where feature sets are really driven by internal processes, then a "not implemented yet" feature isn't much of a bug. Of course, the term "bug" itself is vague; every stakeholder has a different idea of what "bug" means. To the coder, a bug might only mean code which contains a flaw. To project management, a bug is a certain kind of record in the tracking system. To a customer, a bug is any variance between the spec and the delivered implementation. And so on. Whose opinion matters most?
Also, under test-driven development, missing features are usually actual bugs, by just about any definition. This is particularly true if the "not done yet" feature is depended upon by other parts of the system.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^12: regexp class (no bugs)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 19, 2011 at 16:09 UTC | |
by jdporter (Paladin) on Sep 19, 2011 at 18:07 UTC |