On Monday, 25 July 2022 at 08:52:55 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> ...

Hi RazvanN, first of all thanks for the update report.

One thing that called my attention is the Issues marked as Invalid, for example: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553 .

It was opened 7 years ago, and It seems to be valid and according to the last comment:

   "Daraban Timotei 2022-07-23 11:10:45 UTC

   Documentation has changed and no longer conflicts with return types."

So now the documentation doesn't conflict, and 7 years later the issue turned to be invalid, but I wonder if a better flag should be used like "Automatically fixed", "Already Fixed", "Auto Solved" etc. Instead of just flagging as "Invalid" after so many years, since it was valid once.

Matheus.

On Monday, 25 July 2022 at 11:34:24 UTC, Matheus wrote:
> On Monday, 25 July 2022 at 08:52:55 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
>> ...
>
> Hi RazvanN, first of all thanks for the update report.
>
> One thing that called my attention is the Issues marked as Invalid, for example: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553 .
>
> It was opened 7 years ago, and It seems to be valid and according to the last comment:
>
>    "Daraban Timotei 2022-07-23 11:10:45 UTC
>
>    Documentation has changed and no longer conflicts with return types."
>
> So now the documentation doesn't conflict, and 7 years later the issue turned to be invalid, but I wonder if a better flag should be used like "Automatically fixed", "Already Fixed", "Auto Solved" etc. Instead of just flagging as "Invalid" after so many years, since it was valid once.
>
> Matheus.

Yes, in this case the documentation was changed to match the behavior, therefore the issue should have been marked as fixed.