On 24 August 2015 at 11:42, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>: >> On 24 August 2015 at 09:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > The revision ids are also useful for bugzilla, r123456 >> > links in text pointing to http://gcc.gnu.org/r123456 is significantly >> > shorter >> >> The first six characters of the sha1 is usually enough to >> unambiguously identify a commit, so we could easily have >> https://gcc.gnu.org/git/f00baa or something similar, if we don't use >> git-notes to add a revision to the commits. > > I recommend *against* using hashes to identify commits. Here's what I said > about it in the NTPsec developers guidelines. > > === How to refer to previous commits === > > The best (most human-friendly) way to reference a commit is by quoting its > summary line. If you need to disambiguate, give its date and author.
That doesn't really work if we want Bugzilla to automatically turn something that looks like a reference to a commit into a hyperlink. Currently I can say "caused by r227043" in a bugzilla comment and it links to the relevant commit. I don't really want to have to say "caused by libstdc++/67294 Don't run timed mutex tests on Darwin" or "caused by Author: Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> Date: Thu Aug 20 20:36:19 2015 +0000 " It's pretty simple for Bugzilla to look for "r\d+" in comments and create a hyperlink to https://gcc.gnu.org/\1 without accessing the repository at all. It would not be practical (for every bugzilla comment) to search the repo for "libstdc++/67294 Don't run timed mutex tests on Darwin" to identify a specific commit and create a link to it. > The worst way is to quote its git hash, because humans are not good at > keeping random strings of hex digits in working memory. Besides, hashes > will break if the history is ever moved to another VCS or the repository > has to be surgically altered. We have that situation now with the subversion commit IDs we refer to in Bugzilla, that doesn't mean it isn't useful.
