It is not a semantic problem. "Issue" was an very broad term far before it was used in software development / project management. It's meaning easily encompasses far more than just bug reports. This is why we have labels to break issues down into other categories. Some issues are purely discussion topics, some are change requests, some are bug reports. You seem to be trying to restrict the meaning of 'issue' in a way that matches neither current usage, nor historical usage.
You may disagree that it's a problem, but what I'm referring to has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with the semantic meaning of the word.
The actual semantic meaning of the word "issue" is broad and doesn't support any of your arguments. You seem to think "issue" means something different from how the rest of the world uses it or has used it.
Ok, so? That means you disagree about me on whether it's a problem, which is fine.
When I hear the word "issue", I hear something roughly similar to "problem"; it certainly has a negative connotation. Maybe I'm just wrong, maybe I'm the only person in the world who associates "issue" with something negative. And even if I'm wrong, it still has nothing to do with marketing.
Concern about the negative emotional connotation of a word instead of that word's semantic meaning is a classic "marketing" concern, but whether or not we call your concern one about "marketing" (which is itself a very broad term) seem irrelevant to that actual substance of your concern.
Since you don't like the connotations of word "issue", what word would you suggest to replace it? Keep it mind that it needs to be similarly broad and encompass not just bug reports and feature requests, but also documentation improvements, design discussions and more.
Holy shit. You are disagreeing with me about the meaning of a term. That is not about marketing, that is literally what "semantic" means.
> Since you don't like the connotations of word "issue", what word would you suggest to replace it? Keep it mind that it needs to be similarly broad and encompass not just bug reports and feature requests, but also documentation improvements, design discussions and more.
Only if you want to keep everything about the UI the same except for the word used for what's currently called "issues". That's not something I have expressed any sort of desire for.
> Holy shit. You are disagreeing with me about the meaning of a term.
I am explaining that you are mistaken about the meaning of the term. I'm backed up by pretty much any dictionary you use to look the word up in.
If you don't dispute the literal meaning of the word, but think it carries a negative connotation, that is not a semantic issue.
> Only if you want to keep everything about the UI the same except for the word used for what's currently called "issues". That's not something I have expressed any sort of desire for.
We currently have a broad category of things, these things need to have a name. You seem to think that "issue" is a bad name for this category of things, so I am asking: what you think is a better term for this category?
We can further break down that category into "bug reports", "feature requests", "change requests", "discussions" and add better UI elements to surface those groups but the overall system that manages these all these items still needs a general name for what it is managing.
Listen, I'm done with this discussion. For the second part of your comment I already linked you to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33774066. For the first part, everything I can find on the topic indicates that connotations are part of semantics; it's a part of the word's meaning, after all. If you disagree with that, fine, I don't care, I have made it as clear as I can possibly be that nothing I've said has anything to do with marketing.
"meaning" itself is a broad term, but the "literal meaning" AKA the "denotation" is distinct from the "connotation" of a term. Semantics is a broad term that means different things in different disciplines, but generally concerns itself with the denotation more than the connotation. I suppose you could make an argument that the denotation of "semantics" could technically include connotation but that the connotation of "semantics" usually implies that it is denotation that is being discussed.
Instead of arguing the different definitions of the word "semantic" with me, why not just listen when I say that I'm not talking about marketing. Please.
I've mentioned "marketing" exactly once, and only to dismiss the debate about what is and isn't marketing as irrelevant. I've tried to constructively drive the conversation forward repeatedly, if I've been drawn into side discussions, it is only by you bringing up those topics.
I also disagree with you about how you're treating the term. "Issue" is used more broadly from a user perspective.
As a user it legitimately is an issue, in the commonly used sense, if you cannot do what you need to do with software, even if that software is working exactly as designed and no one has yet flagged some alternate functionality to add with an enhancement.
> When I hear the word "issue", I hear something roughly similar to "problem"; it certainly has a negative connotation.
That's a you problem.
Ignoring the definition of issue (which also disagrees with your "negative" outlook), GitHub Issues, the product/feature, is clearly defined and encompasses things that deserve discussion, debate, or dispute.
A feature request is very much something that should be discussed.
> Maybe I'm just wrong,
Yes, you are. Rather than push back, accept it and move on.
> GitHub Issues, the product/feature, is clearly defined and encompasses things that deserve discussion, debate, or dispute.
Except that GitHub Issues originally only encompassed bugs. Labels weren't added until later that allowed you to filter by "type". Also, GitHub Discussions are for discussions, not GitHub Issues. GitHub themselves say that Issues is "often referred to as GitHub's bug-tracking system", so I wouldn't say that it's so "clearly defined".
> Also, GitHub Discussions are for discussions, not GitHub Issues. GitHub themselves say that Issues is "often referred to as GitHub's bug-tracking system"
That quote is directly below a quite clear explanation of what issues are for: "are useful for discussing specific details of a project such as bug reports, planned improvements and feedback."
Each project can decide for themselves at where they draw the line in terms of what they want where. That is a good thing, it makes github issues flexible for a wide range of projects that are organized in a wide variety of manners. It seems like a shame to lose that flexibility to make it easier for people who are too lazy to do more than look at the count of open issues when evaluating the health of a project.
