1 |
On 09/28/2017 09:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> W dniu czw, 28.09.2017 o godzinie 11∶06 +0200, użytkownik Kristian |
3 |
> Fiskerstrand napisał: |
4 |
|
5 |
>> (2)(a) Should Bug be a generic indicator for bug information, including |
6 |
>> upstream bugs, or; (b) do we want to separate upstream / other |
7 |
>> information in e.g a References: field that can be used for other bugs |
8 |
>> and descriptions (including security advisories etc). |
9 |
> |
10 |
> As far as I'm concerned, one indicator for all bugs is enough, |
11 |
> especially that in some cases projects have Gentoo upstream which blur |
12 |
> the line between upstream and downstream bugs. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> As for CVEs and other uncommon stuff, I don't have a strong opinion. If |
15 |
> you expect some specific machine action for them, it'd be better to have |
16 |
> a unique tag though. |
17 |
|
18 |
I'm actually thinking more of link to things like advisories and |
19 |
mailing list discussions with a Reference tag in this case, which can |
20 |
also be used along with e.g a URI to e.g a debian bugtracker for same |
21 |
issue if picking a patch etc |
22 |
|
23 |
> |
24 |
>> If so (c) is there |
25 |
>> a benefit in using a full URI for Bug; or should this be reduced to only |
26 |
>> the number, |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Only full URIs are acceptable. Numbers are ambiguous. The repository |
29 |
> and commits within it are mirrored to various sources, can be included |
30 |
> in external repositories and so on. We don't want to start closing |
31 |
> accidental bugs all over the place just because someone cherry-picked |
32 |
> a commit without escaping all references Gentoo developers left. |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
Which could also be seen as an argument for Gentoo-Bug: XXXXXX |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
39 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
40 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |