Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > 2) Couldn't this be accomplished more cleanly by adding a num_dups field
> > to the bug itself?
>
> No, because if something is un-dupped you get trouble.
Why doesn't doing this just involve the reverse of the algorithm for
dupping: subtract a.num_dups+1 from b.num_dups?
I've thought about this (on and off) since I first read your posting
several days ago, and I can't think of a case that would be terribly
hard to handle. Provided that both dupping and undupping propagates its
changes through bugs that are already dupped, I can't find a case that
doesn't work.
> I did think about this quite hard when I implemented it, honest :-)
I believe you :) That's why I'm asking... I don't care much how you
implement it, but now the question of "what's wrong with my logic" is
bothering me...
Stuart.
