| 1 |
Dnia 2015-08-10, o godz. 02:16:01 |
| 2 |
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:40:44 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Which is terribly redundant. Just put the whole bug URL. Advantages: |
| 6 |
> > > > |
| 7 |
> > > > - keeps the bug namespaced to bugs.gentoo.org, |
| 8 |
> > > > - has the bug no inside, |
| 9 |
> > > > - is convenient -- you can click it instead of copy-pasting the no. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > 1. URL may change in future, bug number — unlikely. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > If the URL changes, we need to provide backwards compatibility. Too |
| 14 |
> > many resources already depend on that. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > > 2. Bug number can be easily typed, URL has to be copied or |
| 17 |
> > > generated by some tool. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > So, please remind me, how many times the 'easy typing' got the bug |
| 20 |
> > number wrong? This is not a real argument, just another of Gentoo's |
| 21 |
> > 'I'm too lazy to do things right'. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> URLs are longer, so probability of error during typing increases |
| 24 |
> compared to raw numbers. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Not really. You are closer to the threshold when you are too lazy to |
| 27 |
type it and you just copy-paste it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> > > 3. Too many text, hard to read. Some bugs may refer to a dozen of |
| 30 |
> > > URLs. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > And how is a dozen numbers better? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Less text, more readable. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
How is: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Bug: 123451, 453445, 344334, 343444 |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
more readable than: |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/123451 |
| 43 |
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/453445 |
| 44 |
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/344334 |
| 45 |
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/343444 |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Readability is a matter of formatting, not contents. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> > > 4. It is easier to copy a number, than selecting and copying whole |
| 50 |
> > > string. Not all terminals support running browser on URL click. |
| 51 |
> > |
| 52 |
> > So we should optimize for a corner case? |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> What is a corner case? Why not defining "clicking on the link in |
| 55 |
> the git log" as a corner case? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
As far as I'm aware, URLs are supported much more widely than |
| 58 |
Gentoo-specific bug numbers. They are uniform and unique by definition. |
| 59 |
The tools using bug numbers can be easily expanded to extract them from |
| 60 |
URLs. I don't really see forking cgit to support Gentoo bug numbers, or |
| 61 |
asking github to provide special rules for our commits. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> > > 5. Clicking is less convenient than typing "bugs search $number" — |
| 64 |
> > > user have to move hands from a keyboard to a mouse — a terrible |
| 65 |
> > > waste of time, at least in my case with my typing speed. |
| 66 |
> > |
| 67 |
> > You can type the number you see at the end of the URL. If you really |
| 68 |
> > want to go l33t, that shouldn't a problem for you. |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
> This is not a matter of going l33t, this is a matter of getting rid |
| 71 |
> of redundant and pretty much useless data all the same through |
| 72 |
> almost all commit messages. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Which reminds me of the metadata.xml discussion. These days we have |
| 75 |
transparent compression which handles redundant data much better than |
| 76 |
explicit obfuscation, and with much less harm. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
-- |
| 79 |
Best regards, |
| 80 |
Michał Górny |
| 81 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives