[Python-Dev] Proposed revision of PEP 3 (using the issue tracker)
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sat Feb 23 07:55:09 CET 2008
"Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47BFB1E6.1020700 at gmail.com...
| the reported bug was either not described clearly enough to be
| or is actually the intended behaviour
| *works for me*
| the reported bug could not be replicated by the developers
This strikes me as a near duuplicate of 'invalid'. Do we really need this?
| *out of date*
| the reported bug applies only to versions of Python which are no longer
| supported, or the bug has already been fixed in all versions where it is
| possible to fix it (some fixes require new features and hence cannot be
| backported to maintenance branches)
This is another form of 'invalid' though more different than 'works for
me'. But does anyone really care other than this being a holdover from SF?
It seems to me that 'fixed', 'invalid', and 'duplicate' (of valid report)
seem a good enough resolution of closed bug reports.
Thanks for a definite proposal that we can discuss and pass on to Martin.
More information about the Python-Dev