Am Mittwoch, dem 13.09.2023 um 11:27 -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: > For just closing cross-referenced bugs, I agree. For closing > forgotten, already merged issues on guix-patches we'd need the > Change-Id and a tool able to map Change-Ids -> issue number (mumi is > in the best place to do so). > > It's been a hard discussion to follow, but I think we're coming to > some understanding that we are discussing two different schemes that > could be both implemented to provide different benefits, right? I do wonder how the ChangeId would work in practice. Since it's not really assigned by the committer, it would have to be generated "on the fly" and attached to the mail in between, which could result in all kinds of nasty behaviour like unstable Ids or duplicated ones. Also, if we can automate this for ChangeIds, we could also automate this for patch-sets – the last patch in the series just gets the Closes: tag added by mumi.
Furthermore, I'm not convinced that it would ease the issue of forgotten bugs as you can't really apply them to the past. So the practical use is limited to the case where you intentionally cherry- pick this or that commit from a series. How we want to deal with that case could be a discussion in its own right, and maybe ChangeIds really trump the explicit tags proposed by Giovanni or myself here. Whether that justifies the cognitive overhead of juggling them around on every submission remains to be shown or disproven. Beyond the scope of the discussion so far, it also doesn't help us with duplicate or superseded patches (e.g. two series on the mailing list propose a similar change, because one of them has already been forgotten). Again, the explicit close tags would allow this case to be handled in an interpretable fashion. In both cases, we do however also introduce the potential for incorrect tagging, which then needs to be resolved manually (more or less a non-issue, as it's the status quo). Cheers
