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.
>>
Steve Holden wrote:
> +1 for "cannot reproduce".
"cannot reproduce" is ambiguous in a slightly different, more family
oriented manner ... :]
Christian
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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" -
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 believ
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 o
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 'o
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Nick Coghlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | *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 re
> One question I did have is whether or not access to 'security' type
> issues is automatically limited to a small subset of the developers.
No. Reports requiring privacy should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
P
"Nick Coghlan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| *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 str
I've attached a proposed revision of PEP 3 below. Feedback would be
appreciated, and once we have a reasonable consensus that it accurately
describes our current processes I can check it in and Martin can update
the tracker to reflect any changes.
It is intentional that the current non-resolut
10 matches
Mail list logo
