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

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.

Reply to: