| 1 |
W dniu pią, 29.09.2017 o godzinie 14∶45 +0200, użytkownik Kristian |
| 2 |
Fiskerstrand napisał: |
| 3 |
> On 09/28/2017 10:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > > > If so (c) is there |
| 5 |
> > > > > a benefit in using a full URI for Bug; or should this be reduced to only |
| 6 |
> > > > > the number, |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > Only full URIs are acceptable. Numbers are ambiguous. The repository |
| 9 |
> > > > and commits within it are mirrored to various sources, can be included |
| 10 |
> > > > in external repositories and so on. We don't want to start closing |
| 11 |
> > > > accidental bugs all over the place just because someone cherry-picked |
| 12 |
> > > > a commit without escaping all references Gentoo developers left. |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > Which could also be seen as an argument for Gentoo-Bug: XXXXXX |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > And then Gentoo-Closes, Debian-Closes, Fancybuntu-Closes, My-Fun- |
| 19 |
> > Upstream-Tracker-Bug... |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Not really, Closes is already used for multiple providers of |
| 22 |
> infrastructure such as Bitbucket and GitHub, so here URI is anyways |
| 23 |
> needed and isn't specific to Gentoo. Debian bug wouldn't be closed by us |
| 24 |
> to begin with, but it'd fit into a generic Reference: tag if we pulled a |
| 25 |
> patch from it or it discusses it somehow. Ditto for upstream, that goes |
| 26 |
> in Reference as well |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
How is this an argument for introducing a completely incompatible |
| 30 |
and inconsistent concept for the other of the pair? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Best regards, |
| 34 |
Michał Górny |
Archives