For the purposes of simplicity of the initial implementation, not much thought has been given to how we'll deal with task merging/statuses/etc.
But, I feel that you certainly raise an important point about this being currently non-obvious to interpret as a user. I plan to focus on a more complete dups implementation (talking to users, reaching some decisions on how to merge tasks, possibly even adding another kind of task status and/or "emergent bug property" for this kind of thing, etc.) after 1.0 is rolled out.
If you have some suggestions at the moment for how you would expect task merging/status changing to take place when a bug is marked dup, please feel free to document them here. Otherwise we'll glean more insight into this problem with some user discussion/usability testing in the weeks following the 1.0 release.
For the purposes of simplicity of the initial implementation, not much thought has been given to how we'll deal with task merging/ statuses/ etc.
But, I feel that you certainly raise an important point about this being currently non-obvious to interpret as a user. I plan to focus on a more complete dups implementation (talking to users, reaching some decisions on how to merge tasks, possibly even adding another kind of task status and/or "emergent bug property" for this kind of thing, etc.) after 1.0 is rolled out.
If you have some suggestions at the moment for how you would expect task merging/status changing to take place when a bug is marked dup, please feel free to document them here. Otherwise we'll glean more insight into this problem with some user discussion/ usability testing in the weeks following the 1.0 release.