Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2017 21:04:48
Message-Id: 1506891883.950.2.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC by "Andreas K. Huettel"
1 W dniu nie, 01.10.2017 o godzinie 22∶41 +0200, użytkownik Andreas K.
2 Huettel napisał:
3 > Am Mittwoch, 27. September 2017, 21:24:53 CEST schrieb Michał Górny:
4 > > [...]
5 > >
6 > > 3. Also, if time permits we may take a look at the git pre-GLEP [3].
7 > > I have been delaying this for GLEP editors to pick it up but given that
8 > > there has been no action for 2 months... Of course, if the GLEP reform
9 > > is accepted, I'll port it to the new syntax.
10 > >
11 > > [3]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Git
12 > >
13 > >
14 >
15 > As extensions, how about:
16 >
17 > Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/NNNNNN OBSOLETE
18 > (optional third parameter gives the resolution)
19 >
20 > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/NNNNNN un-cc arm@g.o
21 > or generically
22 > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/NNNNNN (command) (parameter)
23 >
24
25 I'd rather not obfuscate the syntax more. Furthermore, when I wanted to
26 add un-CC support I got opinions that this doesn't really belong in
27 commit messages.
28
29 As for resolutions, I don't think that we really have a very good case
30 for using different resolutions when closing via a commit. I mean, most
31 of the time you use that tag because you actually fixed a bug. The only
32 alternate case I see is when you're removing the package completely but
33 I've seen many different ideas on what's the really correct status
34 there...
35
36 --
37 Best regards,
38 Michał Górny