On 03/26/2014 11:00 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Marcus (OOo) wrote:
>> In the last weeks I've seen different styles of how to write an issue
>> number in the commit messages:
>> #i123456#
>> #123456#
>> i123456
>> 123456
>> Does it still matter how it is written? Or is it always recognized
>> correctly?
>
> The first two options do both work and it is a matter of taste. For
> example, two commits mention
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124443
> and you will see mine (using "#i124443") and Juergen's (using
> "#124443#") both automatically picked up by the scripts and added to the
> issue comments.
>
> I'm not sure that the other two options work, but I tend to prefer these
> ones (and I use the first one since we might want to reference other bug
> trackers in future, but at the moment the "i" is redundant).
The point about different bug trackers is very important. Not only for
the future but already in the past. In the OOo history was the e.g. the
Sun-internal bugtracker, where the number-only convention was used.
You'll find many references to this then "one and only" bugtracker when
you grep through our code base. As an example here is a typical
bug-referencing comment in the source file baside2.cxx:
// #116444# check security settings
What does it reference? A bug in the old bugtracker or one in the new
and open bugtracker? Having double checked it I can say that it was a
reference to the old bug tracker.
For that reason I prefer and suggest the #i123456# notation because
there cannot be any doubt, which bugtracker is meant. Cleaning up the
old issue references by removing them has become much more difficult
when many developers switched to the number-only convention after the
move to Apache, so a simple grep cannot distinguish their new issue
references from old ones.
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
