On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:01:46PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > 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? I've an understanding of why duplicates do not expire now, thanks! However, one topic I was trying to raise and might not have done well is: Should bugs with duplicates be eligible for expiration? -- Brian Murray
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)