RetroSearch Browse

Sat Feb 23 07:55:09 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077142.html

"Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:47BFB1E6.1020700 at gmail.com...
| *invalid*
|  the reported bug was either not described clearly enough to be 
reproduced,
|  or is actually the intended behaviour
|
| *works for me*
|  the reported bug could not be replicated by the developers

This strikes me as a near duuplicate of 'invalid'.  Do we really need this?

| *out of date*
|  the reported bug applies only to versions of Python which are no longer
|  supported, or the bug has already been fixed in all versions where it is
|  possible to fix it (some fixes require new features and hence cannot be
|  backported to maintenance branches)

This is another form of 'invalid' though more different than 'works for 
me'.  But does anyone really care other than this being a holdover from SF?

It seems to me that 'fixed', 'invalid', and 'duplicate' (of valid report) 
seem a good enough resolution of closed bug reports.

Thanks for a definite proposal that we can discuss and pass on to Martin.

tjr

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077142.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposed revision of PEP 3 (using the issue tracker)