1 |
On 08/11/2015 10:12 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Dnia 2015-08-11, o godz. 09:56:55 |
3 |
> Dmitry Yu Okunev <dyokunev@××××××××.ru> napisał(a): |
4 |
>> On 08/11/2015 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
5 |
>>>>>>>> 3. Too many text, hard to read. Some bugs may refer to a dozen of |
6 |
>>>>>>>> URLs. |
7 |
>>>>>>> |
8 |
>>>>>>> And how is a dozen numbers better? |
9 |
>>>>>> |
10 |
>>>>>> Less text, more readable. |
11 |
>>>>> |
12 |
>>>>> How is: |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>>> Bug: 123451, 453445, 344334, 343444 |
15 |
>>>>> |
16 |
>>>>> more readable than: |
17 |
>>>>> |
18 |
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/123451 |
19 |
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/453445 |
20 |
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/344334 |
21 |
>>>>> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/343444 |
22 |
>>>>> |
23 |
>>>>> Readability is a matter of formatting, not contents. |
24 |
>>>> |
25 |
>>>> 1. One line and 35 chars are certainly more readable than four lines |
26 |
>>>> and 140 chars. |
27 |
>>> |
28 |
>>> Character counts are completely irrelevant to readability. Visual space |
29 |
>>> is. And in this case, exhibit A (also known as wall of digits) is more |
30 |
>>> likely to get people confused. |
31 |
>> |
32 |
>> I think it's just individual preference. No sense to argue this. Just |
33 |
>> everybody should consider that there exists another position on this |
34 |
>> question. |
35 |
>> |
36 |
>> However I want to add an other argument: |
37 |
>> |
38 |
>> 1a. It's easier to parse the "Bug:" header is there only bug IDs |
39 |
>> (without URLs). |
40 |
> |
41 |
> What if there are different bug trackers involved? We sometimes note |
42 |
> upstream bugs, other distro bugs, pull requests... |
43 |
|
44 |
For example Gentoo may use "Gentoo-Bug:"/"Bug-Gentoo:" as I mentioned. |
45 |
Debian uses "Bug-Debian:" for Debian ITS references and "Bug:" for |
46 |
upstream bugreport references in their patches (debian/patches/*), IIRC. |
47 |
|
48 |
>> And is there any guarantee that URL format won't be changed in future |
49 |
>> (that everybody won't be have to rewrite their parsers). I mean not |
50 |
>> "near future", but "any long future". |
51 |
> |
52 |
> I doubt it can change *without* changing the bug tracker software. |
53 |
> And then, old IDs will no longer be relevant. |
54 |
|
55 |
Why? Just migrate with saved IDs. |
56 |
|
57 |
> In fact, since the URLs |
58 |
> are Bugzilla-specific it will allow us to ensure better compatibility |
59 |
> if we start numbering bugs from 1 again. |
60 |
|
61 |
IMHO, it's a really bad idea to do not migrate previous data to the new ITS. |
62 |
|
63 |
> There's URL and there's URI. Even if URL is no longer valid, it will |
64 |
> still be a valid URI. It will still allow us to uniquely identify |
65 |
> the bug report. |
66 |
|
67 |
Only if you will use Bugzilla or some workarounds to imitate Bugzilla. |
68 |
It's a lock-in. |
69 |
|
70 |
>>>> 2. Strings are read from left to right (at least in English), thus |
71 |
>>>> having most important information last on the line is not |
72 |
>>>> convenient. |
73 |
>>> |
74 |
>>> This is not literature. Keys usually precede values, and namespaces |
75 |
>>> precede namespaced identifiers. |
76 |
>> |
77 |
>> A commit-comment is not a source code. It's an ordinary text (like |
78 |
>> "literature"). |
79 |
> |
80 |
> Literature is a long continuous text which you read left-to-right, |
81 |
> and usually without going back. This is short text which you read |
82 |
> randomly, possibly going back and forth, and scanning for specific |
83 |
> details. |
84 |
|
85 |
Well, ok. But personally I have a habit to read such text left-to-right. |
86 |
It requires split seconds to recognize this lines similarity but it |
87 |
requires. |
88 |
|
89 |
Anyway as I said, I will see much more garbage while looking on the |
90 |
whole text if you will use URLs instead of pure IDs. |
91 |
|
92 |
>>>>> As far as I'm aware, URLs are supported much more widely than |
93 |
>>>>> Gentoo-specific bug numbers. They are uniform and unique by definition. |
94 |
>>>>> The tools using bug numbers can be easily expanded to extract them from |
95 |
>>>>> URLs. I don't really see forking cgit to support Gentoo bug numbers, or |
96 |
>>>>> asking github to provide special rules for our commits. |
97 |
>>>> |
98 |
>>>> We should not adjust our ecosystem for closed and proprietary |
99 |
>>>> solutions like github. |
100 |
>>> |
101 |
>>> URLs are not github invention. Localized bug numbers are local Gentoo |
102 |
>>> non-sense. So should we adjust it to ignore the rest of the world and |
103 |
>>> expect everyone to create custom hackery just to be able to see a bug |
104 |
>>> report? |
105 |
>> |
106 |
>> You can use header "Gentoo-Bug:" (instead of "Bug:") and explain in |
107 |
>> documentation ways to parse that. |
108 |
> |
109 |
> So you're suggesting it's better to invent a custom format and tell |
110 |
> people how to handle it, rather than use a commonly-supported format? |
111 |
|
112 |
What you mean with the "custom format"? I suggest to use comment as a |
113 |
comment, but not as a documentation about "How to reach Gentoo ITS" in |
114 |
every comment. |
115 |
|
116 |
I can agree with another argument: |
117 |
There should be a possibility to define an upstream bug which format in |
118 |
turn can be simply unified only by URLs. And it may became harder to |
119 |
read when neighboring headlines are formatted different ways (one header |
120 |
— pure IDs, another one — URLs). But _IMHO_, it doesn't outweigh |
121 |
disadvantages of this approach (with URLs for reference on Gentoo bug). |
122 |
|
123 |
-- |
124 |
Best regards, Dmitry. |