Re: Git workflow GLEP (Was: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC)

[Michał Górny]

W dniu czw, 28.09.2017 o godzinie 21∶56 +0200, użytkownik Kristian
Fiskerstrand napisał:
> On 09/28/2017 09:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 28.09.2017 o godzinie 11∶06 +0200, użytkownik Kristian
> > Fiskerstrand napisał:
> > > (2)(a) Should Bug be a generic indicator for bug information, including
> > > upstream bugs, or; (b) do we want to separate upstream / other
> > > information in e.g a References: field that can be used for other bugs
> > > and descriptions (including security advisories etc).
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, one indicator for all bugs is enough,
> > especially that in some cases projects have Gentoo upstream which blur
> > the line between upstream and downstream bugs.
> >
> > As for CVEs and other uncommon stuff, I don't have a strong opinion. If
> > you expect some specific machine action for them, it'd be better to have
> > a unique tag though.
>
> I'm actually thinking more of link to things like advisories and
> mailing list discussions with a Reference tag in this case, which can
> also be used along with e.g a URI to e.g a debian bugtracker for same
> issue if picking a patch etc
>
> >
> > >  If so (c) is there
> > > a benefit in using a full URI for Bug; or should this be reduced to only
> > > the number,
> >
> > Only full URIs are acceptable. Numbers are ambiguous. The repository
> > and commits within it are mirrored to various sources, can be included
> > in external repositories and so on. We don't want to start closing
> > accidental bugs all over the place just because someone cherry-picked
> > a commit without escaping all references Gentoo developers left.
> >
>
> Which could also be seen as an argument for Gentoo-Bug: XXXXXX
>

And then Gentoo-Closes, Debian-Closes, Fancybuntu-Closes, My-Fun-
Upstream-Tracker-Bug...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny