Bug Expiration Criteria

[Brian Murray]

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
-------------- 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/20080609/423ac894/attachment.pgp