add a 'works as documented' status for issues

Sounds great, but I don't know if we should actually use "RTFM". Considering what it stands for... I'm waffling a bit because it's a nice short thing that people know what it means, but I do wonder if maybe a more polite wording could be used?

Michelle

As appropriate as it would be in many circumstances i can totally see it being used against us as evidence of a hostile development community. "Dont use drupal i hear they're so hostile they actually have a bug status called RTFM". More installation bases hopefully equates to more development talent because of all the maintenance/bugfixing required that will be provided by people like you and me. Like i said as appropriate as it might be i think it is a little hostile for new users.

any objections before i click this into existance on d.o? (no code required).

Um. Yes?

I can't possibly think of anything more rude and insulting to a new potential contributor (unless the F was spelled out, perhaps). "closed" is fine, with a polite pointer to the documentation.

I too would love to see RTFM but alas, everyone's right. It's too hostile and, well, plain rude. When a tech says to another tech "Damn RTFM it!" we all get the joke. But end users just won't see the funny side of this. I've used pebcak before ;)

So, "Pebcak - please read the manual" would get my vote :)

webchick, I totally agree with you on the first half.

Keep in mind that the dumb questions come mostly from new users/developers, many of them could have the potential to contribute in great ways down the road. I think when in that position it's hard to see the humor in such a status.

But, I think that there is a good distinction to be made between closed and "as documented" or "works as documented" that is more educational and useful to those new users.

I lean towards 'closed' as well. It seems like this is only really useful for capturing 'Closed, and I was shocked and annoyed by the issue being posted in the first place.' ;-)

But, I think that there is a good distinction to be made between closed and "as documented" or "works as documented" that is more educational and useful to those new users.

I've been using 'by design' for that... Maybe because I still need to write documentation ;)

The problem with "closed" is all things tend to gravitate to status closed. It would be very useful to be able to search "closed issues" that were RTFM related. Users could search as a sort of "I don't read manuals, I want a FAQ of other users like me".

I have to agree, 'closed' is much more polite.

AjK: Then compile a FAQ for your module so people can find answers to these questions. :P Honestly.

Plus, someone who doesn't read documentation is not likely to search the issue queue first. ;) I don't see any point in collecting data on this.

@webchick: The data maybe used to compile FAQ list :P

Anyway, I think by-design works perfectly fine.

'works as documented' is fine with me. I concede that it would be useful for compiling lists of FAQs.

Sorry for snapping on this issue, but I do a lot of work evangelizing the Drupal community as a friendly, helpful place where anyone who makes an effort to contribute is welcome and encouraged, and this type of thing flies directly in the face of that.

Yeah, 'as documented' works for me too. I can see the value in separating it from 'by design'. :-)

I like "as documented". Much friendlier. :)

And I do see a value in this. If there is a lot of issues being so marked, perhaps the docs aren't clear enough? Not necessarily, I realize as too many simply don't RTFM, but having quite a few of them may show a pattern.

Michelle

Something that still captures the bottom line of RTFM with a more polite manner could be "Please see documentation" or something like that, or "Refer to documentation." This is enough to capture the essense when browsing the issue queue.

The idea of using it to create user FAQs was tongue in cheek I have to admit. The real sense of "collecting the data" as a useful feature was what I meant and seems to be what's been picked on. So "as documented" works for me.

in such a situation, i think i would use "by design" with a polite pointer to the documentation, or just a pointer to the documentation.

i want also to remind you that it is so easy to have the "RTFM" temptation when you are a drupal veteran, or you work with drupal on a daily basis. however, new users have to face irrelevant or outdated or incomplete (as in work in progress that was never finished) handbook pages. a pointer to what can be considered as obvious documentation by the inner-circle of core drupal players is not necessarily found out by newcomers or "irregular" drupalers.

i also find a difficulty in collecting FAQ data from questions somehow considered as dumb per the former RTFM issue status proposal :)

regards,
g.

'As documented' gets my vote

BTW I was the one who coined RTFM as a status, in a discussion about all the installation support requests for WYSIWYG modules, those are generally complicated to install so they get a lot of redundant requests.. the other part of the idea was some usefull aliases for projects http://drupal.org/node/146057

IMO this is fine, what could be more polite than "Read The Fine Manual"? ;-)

'as documented' is a little confusing. I remember when (to be ported) first came out, tons of people were adding it in the wrong situations, just want to make sure that doesn't happen. With that said, I'm fine with 'as documented' but prefer something more along the lines of 'active (needs more info)' like...

'please see documentation' or 'closed (see documentation)'.

Why not make the status 'FAQ' and either a) answer the question, b) link to the documentation.

my major problem with "works as documented" is that all to frequently the documentation doesn't exist or is too terse and hence the problem being submitted. "by design" has a similar problem in that the design is not written anywhere but in the code.

I vote for "works as documented" but marking it as such only after verifying that it really is documented decently or fixing the documentation so that it is clear on whatever the issue is.

That's why I like status FAQ. People other than the developer can answer FAQ. We do it in #drupal-support all the time.

/me walks away quietly and sits down.

+1 for FAQ.

To be honest, I'd rather RTFM than 'as documented', RTFM is tongue in cheek, 'as documented' sounds haughty, and I'd be more offended than RTFM if I'd actually read the documentation and got that as a status.

RTFM is tongue in cheek for people who are in the know and 1337, but a little hostile to newbies, so using another label for it is the way to go.

A 'works as documented' status should obviously only be used if the one setting it links to the relevant documentation... but that's obvious if you want to _help_ a newbie, otherwise don't even bother.

I'm ok with FAQ meaning both "is in the FAQ" and "needs to be in the FAQ."

You can't just create a FAQ from scratch. It has to develop over time.

So maybe we need both "See documentation / as documented" and "FAQ" -- or maybe we need a project_faq.module.

RTFM is horrible in my opinion for reasons stated. I just want another nail in its coffin.
"works as documented" would be great in my opinion
"FAQ" seems like a decent idea, though dww's first concern (not every "works as documented" is actually a FAQ)

So, WAD+1 from me.

+1 for "Works as documented" as an end state (can be queried for creating FAQs).

-1 for RTFM. It is rude and off putting.

-1000 for rtm or rtfm. In general, even in the forums we do NOT say RTFM as a reply. There are some who have but it is a very rare thing. I would rather NOT introduce that as an 'approved' answer.

works as documented / as documented works. It is long and descriptive.

FAQ is interesting if a little obscure. It could evolve into a interesting choice but there is some education we'd have to invest in with the community and the module contributors if we go with that route.

Speaking of documentation, do we have a list of the project status' and what they mean and are used for? Adding a link in the Contributors block for them may be beneficial.

I'm going to take a look at the FAQ module http://drupal.org/project/faq and see how/if it might work with Project.

This is probably a duplicate of the more recent (and more active) #171350: Reorganise project issue statuses.