On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:20:16PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:38:44PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > 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 > I assume that you meant: > unarchive 12345 -1 > reassign -1 foobar > severity -1 serious > IOW, just like clone? Err, yes, of course I did. Silly me. > Perhaps we could have a default behaviour of -1 being implied and a new bug > being cloned like you describe. This would eliminate excess typing and make > it seem more like the reopen command. I'd rather it be explicit, otherwise: unarchive 12345 unarchive 12346 reassign -1 foo would be a bit confusing. > Heck. Why not make reopen smart like that? And then let unarchive actually > do the more atomic operation of just unarchiving a bug (for, say, the > purpose of adding a tag or a version (in the future when that's implemented) > to a bug and then archiving it back). Because that'd mean that spam would still be accepted for the unarchived bug, even though there's _no_ reason to send mail to it at all (since there's a new bug for it). Also, reopen is documented for changing the submitter address, and having that change the bug number too would suck. Likewise if someone accidently closes the wrong bug number. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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!''
Description: PGP signature