| 15:11.52 | jsmith | Man... when's the last time anybody actually said something useful in this channel? |
| 15:12.09 | jsmith | ~yell |
| 15:12.09 | infobot | AAAAAAAAAAAARG! |
| 15:13.28 | newtonr | jsmith: what what! |
| 15:14.17 | newtonr | it's not exactly *asterisk* documentation, but I re-wrote the issue tracker guidelines |
| 15:14.18 | newtonr | https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+Issue+Guidelines |
| 15:14.34 | newtonr | asterisk related |
| 15:14.47 | jsmith | w00t! |
| 15:15.05 | newtonr | the old one: http://www.asterisk.org/developers/bug-guidelines/ which is from around 2007 or so I believe |
| 15:15.41 | leifmadsen | newtonr: well played |
| 15:16.28 | newtonr | also, soon you'll see links to the issue guidelines when you go to create an issue |
| 15:16.46 | newtonr | plz 2 be r3ading |
| 15:17.07 | newtonr | it'll read something like that, but in english |
| 15:19.34 | newtonr | leifmadsen: lol - i actually meant stimulate |
| 15:19.39 | newtonr | stimulate is different than simulate |
| 15:19.45 | newtonr | in re: to your change |
| 15:20.01 | leifmadsen | o.O |
| 15:20.06 | leifmadsen | stimulate I think was the wrong word |
| 15:20.21 | leifmadsen | and yes, I know they are different words :) |
| 15:20.36 | leifmadsen | "If the issue is a "random" crash or failure there will be little anyone can do to help, unless you can find a way to simulate the issue or get the system to a point where its capturing the needed debug as a failure occurs." |
| 15:20.46 | leifmadsen | you meant simulate there |
| 15:20.49 | leifmadsen | not stimulate |
| 15:21.25 | newtonr | actually i meant stimulate :D , if the crash or failure is random, i want them to find a way to stimulate the issue to appear again |
| 15:21.32 | newtonr | they'll have a hard time simulating it if it appears to be random... |
| 15:21.34 | leifmadsen | I know what you meant |
| 15:21.36 | leifmadsen | you mean simulate |
| 15:21.40 | leifmadsen | not stimulate |
| 15:22.01 | leifmadsen | stimulate doesn't really make any sense in the sentence |
| 15:22.26 | leifmadsen | the purpose is that they need to reproduce the issue |
| 15:24.10 | newtonr | the intent is for them to stimulate the issue into happening again, so that they can gather debug |
| 15:24.21 | newtonr | the context of the sentence is that the issue is happening randomly |
| 15:24.31 | newtonr | if the issue is occuring somewhat randomly, you wouldnt have a process to simulate the issue |
| 15:24.48 | newtonr | sure, it would be great if they could find a way to reproduce the problem |
| 15:25.32 | leifmadsen | I still disagree with the word you've used |
| 15:25.42 | leifmadsen | I think you need a different word regardless |
| 15:25.45 | newtonr | you disagree with the definition of the word? |
| 15:25.52 | leifmadsen | I disagree with your usage of it |
| 15:26.04 | newtonr | i may agree with you there, as this is the third time someone has confused the meanings of stimulate and simulate |
| 15:26.21 | newtonr | i started using it due to a popular guide on troubleshooting which uses the terminology |
| 15:26.22 | leifmadsen | I know what stimulate means |
| 15:26.27 | leifmadsen | and it doesn't belong in that sentence |
| 15:26.29 | newtonr | and makes a very clear distinction between stimulate and simulate |
| 15:26.42 | leifmadsen | remind what guide that is so I can avoid it at all costs |
| 15:27.51 | newtonr | lol! |
| 15:28.29 | newtonr | i believe it was just called debugging |
| 15:28.50 | newtonr | by david J agans |
| 15:29.20 | newtonr | but there is no misuse of the word going on, if you look at the definition of it, its perfectly acceptable |
| 15:29.44 | newtonr | simulate makes no sense in that sentence due to it discussing a random failure |
| 15:30.01 | leifmadsen | I guess... it's still incredibly odd and weird to use that word in that sentence |
| 15:30.03 | newtonr | you can't simulate something that you dont understand or have a process for |
| 15:30.33 | leifmadsen | no, in your sentence simulate perfectly acceptable |
| 15:30.48 | leifmadsen | you've said essentially, "If this is random, it's useless, so you'll have to figure out a way to simulate it." |
| 15:31.06 | leifmadsen | so simulate is the correct word, since you've said it being random is useless |
| 15:31.25 | leifmadsen | "If the issue is a "random" crash or failure there will be little anyone can do to help, unless you can find a way to simulate the issue or get the system to a point where its capturing the needed debug as a failure occurs." |
| 15:31.52 | leifmadsen | in that sentence, simulate is correct -- because you've said previously that it being random, by nature, is useless |
| 15:31.54 | leifmadsen | you need to be able to simulate it |
| 15:32.39 | newtonr | hmm, i'd agree that simulate is being used correctly there, but it changes the intent and meaning from what I originally meant |
| 15:33.02 | leifmadsen | use a different word |
| 15:33.12 | newtonr | I'm asking them to find a way to encourage the issue to occur again, so that they can gather debug leading us to the problem or else a way to reproduce it |
| 15:33.24 | leifmadsen | I suggest you reword the sentence then |
| 15:33.28 | newtonr | im in effect asking them to stimulate the issue, so that they could find a way to simulate it |
| 15:33.34 | leifmadsen | because stimulate is a confusing word to use |
| 15:33.50 | leifmadsen | I now officially hate the usage of that word |
| 15:36.32 | newtonr | How about: "If the issue is a "random" crash or failure there will be little anyone can do to help, unless you can find a way to cause the issue to reoccur so that you can capture the needed debug. " |
| 15:36.54 | leifmadsen | better |
| 15:37.08 | leifmadsen | although reoccur is nearly a synonym of simulate |
| 15:46.37 | newtonr | yeah in an ideal scenario, where they knew all the steps to build a simulation they would go simulate the issue in a lab environment then tell us those steps so we could reproduce it |
| 15:47.53 | newtonr | but in this case im telling them what to do in the event of a random failure that has no clear steps for simulation |
| 15:54.59 | newtonr | when i was in support, we used the term stimulate to indicate when we were trying to get an issue to happen that couldn't be reproduced. the stimulation was the actions we took to attempt provoking,inciting, urging the issue to occur. stimulate just tends to make a bit more sense than provoke, incite, urge, etc. |
| 15:55.27 | newtonr | but i agree that my use of stimulate in a sentence where simulate could easily make sense as well confused the whole thing |
| 15:55.55 | newtonr | here we go: " If you can't find a way to simulate or reproduce the issue, then at least get the system to a point where its capturing relevant debug during the times the seemingly random failure occurs. Yes that could mean running debug for days or weeks." |
| 15:56.13 | newtonr | I think that gets across both points, and avoids using stimulate or a synonym of it |
| 16:00.11 | leifmadsen | s/its/it's/ |
| 16:00.19 | newtonr | blurg, thanks |
| 16:02.48 | newtonr | now maybe I won't get any more people saying "you meant simulate" |
| 16:04.29 | newtonr | yay for words with many definitions |
| 16:06.30 | newtonr | leifmadsen: let me know if you find any other weirdness in there! i'm off to eat foods |
| 16:06.34 | newtonr | thanks! |
| 16:06.39 | leifmadsen | np |
| 16:06.41 | leifmadsen | I need food too |