| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On wto, 2017-07-25 at 09:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> There would also be less variation. Bug: 123456 is pretty |
| 5 |
>> unambiguous as a reference. When you start having http vs https and |
| 6 |
>> maybe a few different ways of creating a URL to a bug it could get |
| 7 |
>> messier. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Except that 123456 could refer to any bugtracker anywhere. No |
| 10 |
> reasonable tool will do anything with that number since it's |
| 11 |
> ambiguous by definition. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The same applies to #123456 in the summary line, though. I don't see a |
| 14 |
good reason for using a URL after the "Bug:" keyword as long as bare |
| 15 |
numbers are used elsewhere. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ulrich |
Archives