Re: Closing bugs in removed packages, plus .status format change
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 05:03:20PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 01:32:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Josip Rodin 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
> useful.
I'm not convinced about that use case, because that would also require
adding an 'archive' command (unless you wanted to wait 28 days), which
I'm not sure is a good idea.
On the other hand, maybe that wouldn't be so bad, assuming it worked
only on closed bugs. It would give people an easy way to cope themselves
with a bug that gets spammed frequently after it's closed so that it
never expires, and it would make 'unarchive' reversible in case of bug
number typos.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: