On 26.01.2011 00:25, Martin Pool wrote: > On 26 January 2011 09:13, Robert Collins <[email protected]> wrote: >> Does anyone see an issue with us making bug message index allocation >> write-once? >> >> Separately, there is an open question about how to allocate the >> indices when there are already hidden messages; I propose to be very >> simple and just do date first->last. > > I agree that would actually be a minor feature: people sometimes refer > to comments by number either in hyperlinks or comment text, and these > will break if they change. > > If this is confusing we could later show "message #4 deleted".
Keeping links to single message stable is indeed better, and we do that already by including hidden messages in the dynamically created index. Showing additionally a hint "message #4 is deleted" would be an improvement: At present. we simply have gaps in the numbering. See for example the last comments on https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/183685 : #496 is missing (execpt for LP admins). > > John, I think messages only get hidden administratively when they are > eg spam or were posted accidentally. There're no acls within a > message sequence. right. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
