[gentoo-dev] Re: Referencing bug reports in git

[Duncan]

hasufell posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:02:43 +0200 as excerpted:

> On 08/10/2015 02:51 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>
>>> This is not a matter of going l33t, this is a matter of getting rid of
>>> redundant and pretty much useless data all the same through almost all
>>> commit messages.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> "Gentoo-Bug: 123456" or even "Bug: 123456" is enough to uniquely
>> identify a bug. Also it is easier to read (and to type) than its URL
>> equivalent.
>>
>>
> So, would this replace the bug number reference in the summary? Should
> we tell people to reference the bug only in the commit message
> description?
>
> Or do we say:
> * bug number in summary optional
> * bug number in description mandatory via "Gentoo-Bug: 1234"

What about:

* bug number in summary strongly recommended
** summary bug number standardized to GB#xxxxxx or #xxxxxx or similar, 
short enough for summary, easily identified. GB# would be distinctly 
gentoo and could be expanded to KDEB#, GNB# (gnome), FDOB#, etc, for 
projects where users likely to want to see the bug likely know what it is.
** summary lists gentoo bug if any, upstream only if no gentoo bug.

* bug URL in description required.
** standardized to Gentoo-Bug: .......
** gives people wanting something to click a way to do so
** U in URL is universal, unambiguously identifies reference for those 
unfamiliar with summary shorthand.
** Multiple allowed, for multiple gentoo bugs or to identify upstream 
bugs (using FDO-Bug: or similar) as well.

That seems a reasonable compromise, given people pulling both ways
in-thread.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman