On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 07:31:09AM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 04:55:49PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > > I was reviewing bugs that can expire in Ubuntu and became curious about > > one of the expiry criteria[0] - 'it is not marked as a duplicate of > > another bug'. > > The main rationale for not expiring duplicate bugs was actually public > outcry when we ran the expiration script for the first time. But does it > really make sense to mark a duplicate expired (generating email, etc) if > the duplicate doesn't really have a status? No, I don't think it makes sense to mark such a bug as a duplicate. Although, I think that criteria is mainly an internal one, since internally the duplicate has a status. Externally, the bug doesn't have a status, or is basically the same bug as the master bug. Just as we don't change the status of the duplicate bug explicitly when the master bug changes, we don't expire the duplicate bug, explicitly, when the master bug expires. I don't think we need to list this criteria on the wiki page. Regards, Bjorn
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)