On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:30:24PM -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 02:28:30PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > > > 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? > > I guess the /with/ there was a bit understated. I am not sure of the > answer, though. In a way you want them to, because it could be a bug > that affected a variety of users but no longer does; on the other hand, > we can't really detect whether activity in the duplicates occurred. > Maybe it's safer to exclude them. > > How many are in this situation today, Brian? There are about 52 bugs with duplicates about Ubuntu packages that are Incomplete and 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.)