On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 01:48:19PM +0300, Bjorn Tillenius wrote: > > 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. Right. > I don't think we need to list this criteria on the wiki page. Well, it might be confusing to say it, and it might be confusing to omit it, so maybe it's best to explain why we don't do it? -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3376 0125
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)