Bug Expiration Criteria

[Graham Binns]

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:53:42AM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Brian Murray <brian at canonical.com> 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'.
> >
> > What is the logic and thought process behind that criteria?  I'd think
> > that the bug with duplicates is the one that shouldn't be eligible for
> > expiry.
> 
> I think the reasoning is that once a bug is marked as a duplicate, it
> no longer has a status of its own, therefore it's impossible for it to
> expire.
> 

That's exactly right.

However, Brian has a point. We automatically mark duplicate bugs as
invalid anyway, so they can't be considered for expiration because of
that, too.

Perhaps we should remove the reference to bugs which are duplicates if
it's going to confuse people.

-- 
Graham
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/launchpad-users/attachments/20080606/09eea7b4/attachment.pgp