| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:58 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> What about: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> * bug number in summary strongly recommended |
| 6 |
> ** summary bug number standardized to GB#xxxxxx or #xxxxxx or similar, |
| 7 |
> short enough for summary, easily identified. GB# would be distinctly |
| 8 |
> gentoo and could be expanded to KDEB#, GNB# (gnome), FDOB#, etc, for |
| 9 |
> projects where users likely to want to see the bug likely know what it is. |
| 10 |
> ** summary lists gentoo bug if any, upstream only if no gentoo bug. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> * bug URL in description required. |
| 13 |
> ** standardized to Gentoo-Bug: ....... |
| 14 |
> ** gives people wanting something to click a way to do so |
| 15 |
> ** U in URL is universal, unambiguously identifies reference for those |
| 16 |
> unfamiliar with summary shorthand. |
| 17 |
> ** Multiple allowed, for multiple gentoo bugs or to identify upstream |
| 18 |
> bugs (using FDO-Bug: or similar) as well. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> That seems a reasonable compromise, given people pulling both ways |
| 21 |
> in-thread. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Making the bug number in the summary manditory or strongly encouraged leads to |
| 24 |
wonderful commit messages like: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
--- |
| 27 |
cat-pkg: Fix bug #504321. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Gentoo-Bug: 504321 |
| 30 |
--- |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I would like to see this be more common: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
--- |
| 35 |
cat-pkg: Make the thingy work again. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Gentoo-Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/504321 or 504321 Idon'tcarewhich |
| 38 |
---- |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
If we're limiting the summary to 1 line, 70-75 chars, manditory cat/package |
| 41 |
and bug number there's not a lot of room to summarize in. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
| 46 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |
Archives