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" - 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 I agree with Martin for both of these - 'works for me' and 'out of date' 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. >> >> The term 'works for me' can be confused with 'solution/patch works for me'. >> I've generally seen the phrase 'works for me' to mean agreement of a >> proposed action of some sort. >> >> Maybe something along the lines of 'can not reproduce' would be better? > > I have to agree with Ron. I honestly thought "works for me" meant the > solution worked. Something less ambiguous would be nice. > +1 for "cannot reproduce".
regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
