| 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 |
Archives