On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 02:28:30PM -0700, Brian Murray wrote: > > Well, it might be confusing to say it, and it might be confusing to omit > > it, so maybe it's best to explain why we don't do it? > > I've an understanding of why duplicates do not expire now, thanks! > However, one topic I was trying to raise and might not have done well > is: > > Should bugs with duplicates be eligible for expiration?
I guess the /with/ there was a bit understated. I am not sure of the answer, though. In a way you want them to, because it could be a bug that affected a variety of users but no longer does; on the other hand, we can't really detect whether activity in the duplicates occurred. Maybe it's safer to exclude them. How many are in this situation today, Brian? -- Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3376 0125 -- launchpad-users mailing list launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
