[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Closing bugs in removed packages, plus .status format change



-devel dropped

On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:05:44AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> OK. I'd considered both behaviours, but it does seem simplest to have
> 'unarchive' be a primitive operation.

By far the most common *use* will be to unarchive and reopen,
though. There's almost no point at all unarchiving a bug that's still
closed.

Given the amount of spam the BTS is collecting, I wonder if unarchiving
old bugs and hence reactivating old email addresses is just asking for
spam trouble. One alternative possibility would be to clone archived bugs,
rather than reopening them per se, so that you have something like:

	unarchive 12345 -1
	# -1 now refers to new bug number 234567, which is open, and whose
	# log contains a copy of the log from 12345; 12345 is left archived,
	# bug its log has a note that 234567 has been cloned from it

	reassign 234567 foobar
	severity 234567 serious

Note that you can't do:

	To: 12345@bugs.debian.org
	Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

	unarchive 12345
	thanks

	blahblablah

anyway, since the mail to 12345@bugs.d.o will be processed before the
mail to control.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
        you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''

Attachment: pgpyNAwm0Y4cz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: