"Nick Coghlan" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote in message news:47C1074E.email@example.com... |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|I agree with Martin for both of these - 'works for me' and 'out of date' |convey additional information to the originator of the bug, even if they |don't make a signifcant difference from a development point of view.
It seems to me that the place to convey real information to the originator is in the closing comment -- as the PEP requires. "Works for me' can hardly work if we cannot agree on the meaning. And why is its usage restricted to 'developers' as opposes to 'reviewers' like me?
In any case, I have a more radical proposal: drop the disposition field altogether and split the 'closed' status into two. First, closed because we have completed a non-empty set of actions (changes); in other words, 'finished'. Second, closed because we decide not to do anything; in other words, 'rejected'.
This proposal eliminates altogether the impoliteness of 'invalid'. 'Invalid' is an possibly debateble opinion (even though backed by facts) about the originators issue. 'Rejected' is a non-debateble and truthful statement of a decision to not act.
This proposal also eliminates the the redundancy between a non-empty disposition and the 'closed' status implied by such. It is not uncommon for people to mark a disposition and explain the reason for closure while leaving the status as 'open'. Or to close and explain and leave the disposition blank.
Terry Jan Reedy