RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 24 07:17:20 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077172.html

Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> One issue to consider is also politeness. People sometimes complain that
>> they feel treated unfair if their report is declared "invalid" - they
>> surely believed it was a valid report, at the time they made it.
> 
> I agree with Martin for both of these - 'works for me' and 'out of date' 
> convey additional information to the originator of the bug, even if they 
> don't make a signifcant difference from a development point of view.

The term 'works for me' can be confused with 'solution/patch works for me'. 
  I've generally seen the phrase 'works for me' to mean agreement of a 
proposed action of some sort.

Maybe something along the lines of 'can not reproduce' would be better?

Ron

> I'd prefer to keep an outright 'invalid' for the cases where the 
> reporter was either genuinely wrong about the intended behaviour, or 
> where the bug report itself is manifestly inadequate (e.g. "I tried to 
> do xyz and it broke" with no further details).
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick.
> 

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077172.html below:

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