[mckn1ght]

Labels have been able to do this for years, why are they not a sufficient solution?

And even if they elevated these to first class items, nothing is stopping maintainers from still closing them or letting them be closed without the issue having been actually fixed.

[nikeee]

Because a label does not contain a reference to the issue that was duplicated. You still have to scroll through the issue's timeline to find it.

[mynameisvlad]

Neither do the statuses as suggested.

Your suggestion is to add a field that will only be used in a single status, which goes against the simplicity of GH Issues (which this update already makes contentious enough, looking at the comments here).

Also, realistically, there will be a mention of the issue in the final ticket, so is scrolling down to the bottom of the issue that hard? You're making it seem like it'd be buried in the middle of the timeline and while that can happen, I don't see that being anything but an edge case. Most tickets won't be referenced after they're closed as dupes.

[bluGill]

This tension is why issue systems become too complex. The ask is reasonable, but implementing it makes the issue system more complex until all the simple asks make the system collapse under the weight of it...

[mckn1ght]

Absolutely. The sum total of reasonable requests can be an unreasonable system. It’s a paradox just like Gabriel’s horn: finite volume, infinite surface area.

Reading through this comment section makes me see exactly how something simple like a GitHub issue becomes a JIRA issue.

This is why I like simple, opinionated solutions. This kind of discussion becomes superfluous.