On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 09:48:49AM -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> From: Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Blocked bugs (and those blocked-by) need to be blocked in the same > way; otherwise merging them will produce an undefined state. Merging > the set of blocks isn't exactly obvious either. I don't understand the first sentence, but here's a proposal for merging the "blocks": union. If bug A blocks X and bug B blocks Y, then merging A and B means each of them blocks both X and Y. Why does this make sense? Because the person merging the bugs is saying that A and B are equivalent in some sense. > The implementation of forcemerge will enable the second bug to take on > the exact same state as the first bug listed, but that's not yet fully > tested. As that bug already exists in multiple forms (see #14043 et > al.) I'm closing this bug. With the exception of 334000, all the other bugs are from people tripped up by a *trivial* difference between the bugs, e.g. a different "forwarded addr" or bugs filed on different packages from the same source. Why should there be a separate "forcemerge" for such trivialities? Just let the regular "merge" do it! -Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
