Recently I've tried to revive one of my old, interesting and - at least, for me - pretty clear question from closure. After editing the post and casting a reopen vote, unfortunately it seems I've hit a wall.

VĂ©race initially misunderstood the question:

Maybe you might want to search for a script to truncate all tables? This would be difficult to write on your own - it has to be done in the correct order - i.e. in grandchildren -> parents -> grandparent order, otherwise the truncates will fail. Not sure about TRIGGERs and PROCEDUREs - but it might be a start. You will, of course, have to reload your entire database. If you can clarify this, I will vote to reopen.

...but offered a reopen vote after another clarification. I made it, but unfortunately it was left unreacted.

The most useful comment arrived from Colin 't Hart:

Depending on how many objects you have, a complete wipe and reinstall is probably going to be faster and give you a cleaner starting point. If you want to do this more than once, suggest you take a backup of the empty database. A file system copy or tar file taken while the instance is shutdown would be perfect for this sort of thing.

He even answered my question in a comment, demonstrating by his own actions that it is not unclear any more. And then, even he clicked "leave closed".

I suspect, maybe some other inherent problem is still there with this question, but somehow it wasn't clearly communicated until now.

But what?

| |

My suggestion would be to add information currently only found in comments into the body of the question, then flag out-of-date comments as obsolete. At the moment, you are asking people (including reopen reviewers) to read ten fairly lengthy comments as well as the question, just to understand it.

I would also encourage you to remove the meta content from the question body:

VtR reviewers: I think the question is now clear, however it might be now a dupe. If this is the case, please drop a comment about the possible original questions.

That ought to be in a comment.

Once all that is done, it will be easier to assess whether the question is worth reopening to answers. I suspect it will be (I was the only person to vote to Leave Open in the original Close Review in 2014), but I am unwilling to make that call myself with the current state of the question.

Now that has been done, the question is in much better shape. I have alerted the original close-voters and commenters to this meta post so they can also review. Everyone's input is welcome, of course.

The question has now been reopened.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .