On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 09:46:03AM +0100, Marcus wrote: > Am 11.02.21 um 09:03 schrieb Arrigo Marchiori: > > I want to mark some duplicate bugs and I have a question. > > for your example, see comments inline. > > > Suppose the bugs are numbered 2, 4, and 6. I have been working on > > number 4, because I did not know about number 2. For this reason, > > number 4 has more comments on BugZilla and my GitHub PR refers to it. > > > > I will declare that no. 6 is a duplicate, because it was reported > > afterwards. > > yes > > > Can I indicate that no. 2 is a duplicate of no. 4 even if it was > > reported before, although according to a strict time-based logic it > > should be the opposite (i.e. that no. 4 is a duplicate of no. 2)? > > Yes > > > The reason I believe it would be better to flag no. 2 as duplicated of > > no. 4 is because report no. 4 contains much more data about the > > problem and IMHO it should ``stand out'' with respect to the others. > > +1 > > In general: > > Following the chronological order is the right thing. This means the oldest > issue will remain when all others are decribing the same problem. > > Exceptions (of course ;-)): > > The respective issue should survive when: > - it has the most helpful comments > - it already has a doc to reproduce the problem > - it has already a reference to SVN / Git / GitHub ... > - it has the most votes, or links to "see also" issues > - it has in general most helpful data. > > That means chronological yes, but maybe it makes sense to use another issue > when it is more helpful and then close all others as duplicate. > > > Thank you in advance for your guidance, > > I hope this is helpful for you. > That's the way I'm doing it.
Very helpful! Thank you. Best regards, -- Arrigo http://rigo.altervista.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: qa-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: qa-h...@openoffice.apache.org
