+1 for doing it based on Issue context.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 2014-08-10 at 12:15 +0200, Dirk Bächle wrote: > > On 10.08.2014 11:02, Russel Winder wrote: > > > I am wondering if it should be policy for later duplicates to be marked > > > as duplicates of earlier issues, rather than earlier issues being > marked > > > as duplicates of later ones? > > > > > I've seen earlier duplicates that had the better information, or > > additional patches/testcases attached. In those cases, I always chose to > > mark the "later" issue as duplicate of the first...I'd really like to > > continue making this decision based on information, not on modification > > dates. > > OK works for me. Whatever works for the people actually doing things > rather than pontificating on them :-) > > -- > Russel. > > ============================================================================= > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:[email protected] > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
