RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 24 14:44:32 CET 2008 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077177.html

Ron Adam 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 I agree with Martin for both of these - 'works for me' and 'out of date' 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?
>
>   
+1 for 'can not reproduce' or perhaps 'can not duplicate'

# Steve

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-February/077177.html below:

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