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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
