Another very simple agreement please: always close the last issue for a duplicate. Just simple as that, prevent concurrent closing of duplicates.
That's a very rare occurrence and I'm not sure it deserves an agreement. Sometimes the last issue is the one with most information in it and the first one was forgotten or overlooked.
That's a very rare occurrence and I'm not sure it deserves an agreement.
So rare is it that it has happened in a short time on this tracker ;)
My concern is to document the procedure because the teams are growing and new people are starting to join them and these "how to's" are good starting points to learn the ways of team collaboration.
Sometimes the last issue is the one with most information in it and the first one was forgotten or overlooked.
This is not a proposition about which report is better because the duplication should mention the other issue and thus establish an interdependence between the two that makes all the associated information available as a whole.
However, it is not wrong to choose to close the one with the least information as a criterion as well, but I tend to think that this is an incentive not to read all the available information. I think that duplication of issues is very often due to a lack of effort on the part of a reporter: either the first is inaccurate or the second has not looked hard enough in the tracker. The role of the team is to take as much information as possible from the reporter as soon as possible, to avoid lack of information, and by that forgetfulness or being overlooked (priorities establishment are based on the information available).
In summary, I am open to both criteria, but I insist in doing an agreement about.
That's a very rare occurrence and I'm not sure it deserves an agreement.
So rare is it that it has happened in a short time on this tracker ;)
Yes! And that's about the first time it happened to me in ... a decade?
I agree about always closing the duplicates in favor of the original, regardless of quality, as long as the end goal is identical.
I agree about always encouraging subscribers of both issues to read about the other.
I would also like to suggest separating rules discussion and events discussion, because decisions should be objective.
I would also like to suggest separating rules discussion and events discussion, because decisions should be objective.
Can you elaborate about this a little more? I am no sure if got the idea
The dialogue between Loïc and you seems to imply that your agreement proposal is related to an event that involves you two.
But, the decision regarding which issue should be closed between an original and a duplicate, should only be based on what we're going to decide is relevant, and not on whether the event that occured was rare or frequent.
The dialogue between Loïc and you seems to imply that your agreement proposal is related to an event that involves you two.
Ah perfect clear. Is not involving me but inspired to open the issue.
But, the decision regarding which issue should be closed between an original and a duplicate, should only be based on what we're going to decide is relevant, and not on whether the event that occured was rare or frequent.
Agree, but I tend to understand from Loïc argument that more than irrelevant could be too much bureaucratic.
My position is that procedures must be as clear as possible to avoid conflicts by misunderstanding.
On a scale of 1 to 10 how likely is it that, in the future, someone in Forgejo:
I suspect it is close to 1.
There are too much rules in the world for everyone to know them all.
However, rules facilitate enforcement.
Therefore, I think making one is worth it, no matter how small it can be considered.
It is a balance and I believe it deserves further discussion with more people before this is proposed as an agreement.
No due date set.
No dependencies set.
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?