On wto, 2017-07-25 at 09:26 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > Except that there is no machines using it. In all contexts, using full URL > > for machine readability is better as it works with all software out of the > > box. > > > > Until the domain name of the bugzilla server changes/etc. Even if we > migrated all the old bugs the URLs would break. That might be an > argument for not having a full URL.
This is a very stupid argument. If we ever break bug URLs, commit messages are the *least* of our concerns. > There would also be less variation. Bug: 123456 is pretty unambiguous > as a reference. When you start having http vs https and maybe a few > different ways of creating a URL to a bug it could get messier. Except that 123456 could refer to any bugtracker anywhere. No reasonable tool will do anything with that number since it's ambiguous by definition. And if I were to use stupid arguments, then I should point out if we ever have a review platform, then the numbers would suddenly become ambiguous -- is it Bugzilla or the review platform? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
