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

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:47BFB1E6.1020700 at gmail.com...
> | *invalid*
> |  the reported bug was either not described clearly enough to be 
> reproduced,
> |  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?

In the past, "invalid" was used when the behavior reported could be 
reproduced, and was the intended behavior. "works for me" was used when
the steps to reproduce it were clearly spelled out - just the outcome
was different from what the reporter claimed it to be. Possible causes
could be platform differences, or that the bug had been fixed meanwhile;
in either case, the original report might have been valid.


> | *out of date*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?

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.

Regards,
Martin