warlord at MIT.EDU
Thu Jun 24 17:07:40 EDT 2004
Uhh... What makes you think that these two bugs are the same? IMHO
these two are _not_ the same bug. 88517 is about cut-and-paste losing
transaction information, whereas 92484 is about bulk moves of
transactions. They are certainly different in my mind. Why do you
consider them the same?
When bugs are REALLY duplicates, like EXACTLY the same, then yes, feel
free to close them out yourself using the "mark bug as duplicate of"
checkbox. But _MAKE SURE_ the bug is a duplicate! Your example here
fails that check. ;)
"Englisch, Volker (NIH/NCI)" <volker at mail.nih.gov> writes:
> I was wondering how we should be handling duplicate bugs that we identify. I've
> found Bug 88517 and 92484 being identical (assigned to two different developers).
> Should we contact the developers to have them review and mark these as duplicates
> themselves or would the developers feel comfortable if we mark them as duplicates
> for them?
> If I do mark bugs as duplicates I assume the general rule is to leave the first bug
> around while marking any newer bug as a dup with a link back to the original,
> Volker Englisch
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
warlord at MIT.EDU PGP key available
More information about the gnucash-devel