----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Kolesnik" <[email protected]> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], "Dan Kenigsberg" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:27:05 PM > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <[email protected]> > > > To: "Doron Fediuck" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected], "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]>, "Igor > > > Lvovsky" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:49:18 PM > > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit > > > templates. > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > Bug-Id: BZ#888888 dummy bz1 > > > > Bug-Id: BZ#888889 dummy bz2 > > > > Bug-Id: BZ#888890 dummy bz2 > > > > > > I think it's fine, though I find the "BZ#" string quite redundant > > > when > > > it appears after "Bug-Id: " > > > > > > > The BZ# was added (or kept) in order to allow <some> flexibility > > when > > referencing to different bug tracking systems (multiple > > name-spaces). For example, we may accept conventions of LP# for > > ubuntu launchpad. > > Why not simply use a bug link, then?
It is long... I think the bug description is more important, providing both URL and description will make way too long. I am fine with dropping the prefix as well, just wanted to explain why I suggested to use it. Regards, Alon. _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
