RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 24 14:32:49 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077175.html

Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Ron Adam <rrr at ronadam.com> wrote:
>>
>>  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 I agree with Martin for both of these - 'works for me' and 'out of date'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?
> 
> I have to agree with Ron. I honestly thought "works for me" meant the
> solution worked. Something less ambiguous would be nice.
> 
+1 for "cannot reproduce".

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC              http://www.holdenweb.com/

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077175.html below:

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