hasufell posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:02:43 +0200 as excerpted: > On 08/10/2015 02:51 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> > So, would this replace the bug number reference in the summary? Should > we tell people to reference the bug only in the commit message > description? > > Or do we say: > * bug number in summary optional > * bug number in description mandatory via "Gentoo-Bug: 1234"
What about: * bug number in summary strongly recommended ** summary bug number standardized to GB#xxxxxx or #xxxxxx or similar, short enough for summary, easily identified. GB# would be distinctly gentoo and could be expanded to KDEB#, GNB# (gnome), FDOB#, etc, for projects where users likely to want to see the bug likely know what it is. ** summary lists gentoo bug if any, upstream only if no gentoo bug. * bug URL in description required. ** standardized to Gentoo-Bug: ....... ** gives people wanting something to click a way to do so ** U in URL is universal, unambiguously identifies reference for those unfamiliar with summary shorthand. ** Multiple allowed, for multiple gentoo bugs or to identify upstream bugs (using FDO-Bug: or similar) as well. That seems a reasonable compromise, given people pulling both ways in-thread. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
