Re: Closing bugs in removed packages, plus .status format change
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 01:32:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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).
But like I said, for adding something and archiving it back it would be
> Also, reopen is documented for changing the submitter address, and having
> that change the bug number too would suck.
"reopen" only changes the submitter address if you specify that explicitely;
"submitter" changes the submitter address these days.
Given that we expect people to look at control@bugs output for commands
like "merge" or "clone", I don't see why having them observe the output of
"reopen" to see the new number of an unarchived bug would suck so much.
> Likewise if someone accidently closes the wrong bug number.
Surely those wouldn't be noticed > 28 days post res.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.