Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 06:34:16PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> [email protected] writes: >> >> > Amusingly, apparently somebody added code to handle the < > bits, but >> > not the URL: part. >> >> Both forms are in use, but I thought the URL: form was, stupid as it >> looks, more or less considered "correct" in mails. > > As an aside, mutt doesn't handle those nicely... > > ... but more importantly: the form of url that patchy expects is > exactly the form that our forked git-cl uses. If you choose to > upload commits without using our forked git-cl, these problems may > arise.
Our forked git-cl for whatever reason decided to create a new review (probably something went foul when juggling with branches and resets and renames). I don't know why Patchy did not pick up the URL info afterwards: I did a copy&paste job of the last automated comment delivered to 1110, and in issue 2263, Patchy had no problems picking it up. Maybe one has to change the Description instead of mentioning changed links in the comments? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
