Bug Expiration Criteria

[Brian Murray]

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
-------------- 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/20080606/5ee1ae07/attachment.pgp