| 1 |
On 09/28/2017 10:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>> If so (c) is there |
| 3 |
>>>> a benefit in using a full URI for Bug; or should this be reduced to only |
| 4 |
>>>> the number, |
| 5 |
>>> Only full URIs are acceptable. Numbers are ambiguous. The repository |
| 6 |
>>> and commits within it are mirrored to various sources, can be included |
| 7 |
>>> in external repositories and so on. We don't want to start closing |
| 8 |
>>> accidental bugs all over the place just because someone cherry-picked |
| 9 |
>>> a commit without escaping all references Gentoo developers left. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> Which could also be seen as an argument for Gentoo-Bug: XXXXXX |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> And then Gentoo-Closes, Debian-Closes, Fancybuntu-Closes, My-Fun- |
| 14 |
> Upstream-Tracker-Bug... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Not really, Closes is already used for multiple providers of |
| 17 |
infrastructure such as Bitbucket and GitHub, so here URI is anyways |
| 18 |
needed and isn't specific to Gentoo. Debian bug wouldn't be closed by us |
| 19 |
to begin with, but it'd fit into a generic Reference: tag if we pulled a |
| 20 |
patch from it or it discusses it somehow. Ditto for upstream, that goes |
| 21 |
in Reference as well |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 25 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 26 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives