On 18/10/2010 19:18, Georg Brandl wrote: > Am 18.10.2010 20:11, schrieb Barry Warsaw: >> On Oct 18, 2010, at 04:04 PM, Éric Araujo wrote: >> >>> Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different >>> interpretations of the “accepted” resolution: >>> >>>> Traditionally it denotes an approved patch, not a agreement that the >>>> bug is valid. >> I'm with Raymond; I've always used 'accepted' to mean an approved patch. > Same here. I think of the resolution as only relevant when the issue > status is closed (or pending, of course). Whilst I agree we lack a "status" (resolution is probably not right) that says either this bug has been verified as genuine and needs fixing or for a feature request that it has been agreed that the feature can be added but not yet got as far as a completed patch. All the best, Michael > Georg > -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4