Ulrich Mueller schrieb: >> This is not a matter of going l33t, this is a matter of getting rid of >> redundant and pretty much useless data all the same through almost all >> commit messages. > > +1 > > "Gentoo-Bug: 123456" or even "Bug: 123456" is enough to uniquely > identify a bug. Also it is easier to read (and to type) than its URL > equivalent.
I'd like to make the case for a URL in commit messages, like for example freedesktop.org does, and also the kernel for external reports. This allows us to treat Gentoo Bugzilla and upstream/external bug trackers the same. Besides, extracting the bug number from the URL is typically trivial. Going from bug number to URL is sometimes not. Regarding the argument that bug URLs change more often than bug numbers, I think the number of instances when URL changed but the bug numbering didn't is very low. OpenOffice did this I think, but I can't think of any other project right now. Here are examples from freedesktop and kernel: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/commit/?id=db5337afb248edf81087cf8d74006fc496d70589 https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ac88cd738425e04dbed3706621cf613a00708834 I prefer the Bugzilla: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333531 format even though not all bug trackers are running Bugzilla. "Bug: " works fine with me too, and we could make "https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id="; optional for Gentoo bugs, to accommodate for those who insist on not typing so much. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
