| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/26/2017 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The same applies to #123456 in the summary line, though. I don't see a |
| 4 |
>> good reason for using a URL after the "Bug:" keyword as long as bare |
| 5 |
>> numbers are used elsewhere. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> For Bug you'd often refer to upstream reports or other distros, so you |
| 8 |
> need it in a generic form which url provides, having a separate |
| 9 |
> Gentoo-Bug properly defined to ID only solves the ambiguity. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I was thinking that it would make far more sense to use "Bug" for |
| 13 |
Gentoo bugs, and use something like "Reference" or "Remote-Bug" for |
| 14 |
non-Gentoo bugs. 99% of the time commits will reference a Gentoo bug. |
| 15 |
If you wanted to reference others you'd probably have it linked in the |
| 16 |
Gentoo bug anyway so duplicating it in the commit seems wasteful. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In any case, I think what matters is picking one format and then |
| 19 |
sticking it in the repoman template so that people don't have to type |
| 20 |
it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Also, I suggest using either URLs or bug numbers, but not both. |
| 23 |
Otherwise you end up having to copy the URL over, then copy the ID |
| 24 |
only and paste it in the summary. That is an extra step. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives