User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040515 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040515 If DUP bug chain list option for Show Dependency Tree is implemented, correction of DUP chain - remove unwanted nested DUPing - becomes easy. It will also be very convinient in tracking bugs and searching bugs. Example of dependency tree with DUP bug chain option; # aaaaa1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa1-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa1-d1-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa1-d1-d1-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa1-d2 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa1-d2-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa1-d2-d1-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd * aaaaa2 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd o aaaaa3 dddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa3-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa3-d1-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <DUP> aaaaa3-d1-d1-d1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd # bbbbb1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd But there is a problem usually - Loop. Are there any simple way to avoid DUP chain loop? Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Assignee: endico → myk
Component: Bugzilla: Other b.m.o Issues → Creating/Changing Bugs
Product: mozilla.org → Bugzilla
QA Contact: myk → mattyt-bugzilla
Version: other → 2.17.7
Summary: DUP bug chain list option for Show Independency Tree → DUP bug chain list option for Show Dependency Tree
Better: the duplicate tree should have only two levels (a root and children), ie if you mark bug A as duplicate of bug B, and bug B is already a duplicate of bug C, then bug A should be marked directly a duplicate of bug C.
I agree with you. But another case should be considered. (1) Bug A is closed as DUP of Bug B which is open. (2) After (1), Bug B is closed as DUP of Bug C. In this case, Bug A have to be changed to DUP of Bug C. In addition, when Bug B is found that not DUP of Bug C after some days, staus of Bug A should be changed back from DUP of Bug C to DUP of Bug B, original status. Is it easy to implement? This back-out type functionality is difficult to implement, I think. I believe DUP chain listing function is required, even if your "Better solution" is implemented. Both are required.
*** Bug 300471 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
"Dependency tree with DUP bug _chain_" is perhaps annoying, and "Dependency tree with DUPing(only 1 level)" may be better. # aaaaa1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <aaaaa1 DUPs aaaaa1-d1, aaaaa1-d2, aaaaa1-d3, ... > * aaaaa2 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd <aaaaa2 DUPs aaaaa2-d1, aaaaa2-d2, aaaaa2-d3, ... > And, for DUP chain, DUP chain only listing is perhaps better. Question. DUPing can currently be seen only in "Resolution:" field of DUPed bug. (Resolution: DUPLICATE of bug xxxxxx) Does it mean that there is "this bug is DUPed by xxxxx" field only in Bug Data Base? No "this bug DUPs these bugs" data? (like "depends on:" or "blocks:)? If no "this bug DUPs these bugs" field or pointer, query for "bugs DUPed by this bug" becomes very expensive...
*** This bug has been confirmed by popular vote. ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.