Terry Reedy wrote: > You don't need an invitation to disagree with another person's tracker > comment. I assumed you knew this and took non-response as acquiesence. > That (closing no response by item submitter) is a fairly typical pattern , > by the way. I wish it were otherwise.
I (incorrectly) took the comment to support rather than invalidate my report, and did not see anything to challenge. Email is not 100% reliable, but I understand you don't have the time to hound submitters. Do you think it might help to ask a question when you expect a response from the submitter? It might act as a prompt. > That is a different issue. If, for instance, you think the docs could and > should be improved to make people more wary, reopen the item, change the > appropriate field to 'documentation' and please give a suggested addition > or change. I trust the experts to take the appropriate action. It seems equally reasonable to ignore the report for its triviality, or to treat the checksum as a long, since that is what zlib returns. Ben -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
