| 1 |
On wto, 2017-07-25 at 09:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Except that there is no machines using it. In all contexts, using full URL for machine readability is better as it works with all software out of the box. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Until the domain name of the bugzilla server changes/etc. Even if we |
| 8 |
> migrated all the old bugs the URLs would break. That might be an |
| 9 |
> argument for not having a full URL. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
This is a very stupid argument. If we ever break bug URLs, commit |
| 12 |
messages are the *least* of our concerns. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> There would also be less variation. Bug: 123456 is pretty unambiguous |
| 15 |
> as a reference. When you start having http vs https and maybe a few |
| 16 |
> different ways of creating a URL to a bug it could get messier. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Except that 123456 could refer to any bugtracker anywhere. No reasonable |
| 19 |
tool will do anything with that number since it's ambiguous by |
| 20 |
definition. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
And if I were to use stupid arguments, then I should point out if we |
| 23 |
ever have a review platform, then the numbers would suddenly become |
| 24 |
ambiguous -- is it Bugzilla or the review platform? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives