On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:27:06 -0500
Ron Adam wrote:
>
> Could something like (or parts of) the following work? It would have
> assignment and module keywords items as well.
Well, this is very nice, except that the more complicated the form is,
the less likely people are to fill it (and even les
On 10/18/2010 07:07 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
Seriously, though, what it indicates is indicates is that we need a unit
test for the patch to be complete. We have a number of issues with
patches but no tests, I believe. Which order 'unit test' and 'fix'
occur in is arbitrary in practice. I
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:42:08 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:31:24 +0200
> Georg Brandl wrote:
> >
> > This is probably sophistry, but if an issue is invalid, it doesn't need
> > a patch :)
>
> Not only, but it generally gets closed too.
>
> > The first stage seems to be
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:20:13 +0200, wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
> interpretations of the âacceptedâ resolution:
>
> > Traditionally it denotes an approved patch, not a agreement that the
> > bug is valid.
>
> Daniel Stutzbach and I are (were) tw
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:31:24 +0200
Georg Brandl wrote:
>
> This is probably sophistry, but if an issue is invalid, it doesn't need
> a patch :)
Not only, but it generally gets closed too.
> The first stage seems to be "unit test needed" anyway, which
> sounds to me a bit like "needs to be check
Am 18.10.2010 21:28, schrieb Michael Foord:
> On 18/10/2010 20:24, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 18.10.2010 21:04, schrieb Michael Foord:
>>>On 18/10/2010 19:18, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 18.10.2010 20:11, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 04:04 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>
>>
On 18/10/2010 20:24, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 18.10.2010 21:04, schrieb Michael Foord:
On 18/10/2010 19:18, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 18.10.2010 20:11, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 04:04 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
inte
Am 18.10.2010 21:04, schrieb Michael Foord:
> On 18/10/2010 19:18, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 18.10.2010 20:11, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 04:04 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>>
Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
interpretations of the “accepte
On 18/10/2010 19:18, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 18.10.2010 20:11, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 04:04 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
interpretations of the “accepted” resolution:
Traditionally it denotes an approved patch, no
Am 18.10.2010 20:11, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 04:04 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>
>>Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
>>interpretations of the “accepted” resolution:
>>
>>> Traditionally it denotes an approved patch, not a agreement that the
>>> bug is
On Oct 18, 2010, at 04:04 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
>interpretations of the “accepted” resolution:
>
>> Traditionally it denotes an approved patch, not a agreement that the
>> bug is valid.
I'm with Raymond; I've always used 'accepte
Hi everyone
Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
interpretations of the “accepted” resolution:
> Traditionally it denotes an approved patch, not a agreement that the
> bug is valid.
Daniel Stutzbach and I are (were) two users of the second meaning. It’s
more useful
Hi everyone
[Sorry if this comes twice, connection errors here]
Raymond Hettinger noticed on the tracker that there are different
interpretations of the “accepted” resolution:
> Traditionally it denotes an approved patch, not a agreement that the
> bug is valid.
Daniel Stutzbach and I are (were
13 matches
Mail list logo
