> > I didn't say we don't need documentation. I said there will always be more > information than what's documented and reviewers are supposed to teach. >
Will document it. > > > As I said, it's the "Task-number" that triggers the completion in the > > > Gerrit > > > UI. > > > > How will the "Task-number" entry know whether to jump to Gerrit or Jira? > We > > need a distinction here because they are separate sources for > information. > > Simple: it always jumps to JIRA, never to Gerrit. Task are always in JIRA. > Yes, that is the minor problem with the current construction why I thought I would mention it. > > > But that doesn't explain what QTREVIEW is, why it's misspelt and and > why > > > we > > > don't need the same for other classes. > > > > It is not misspelt. I intentionally wrote QT_REVIEW_ according to the > > QT_BUG_ schema. Like I wrote, it could be a better like QTCODEREVIEW or > so. > > I was just presenting the idea. > > Well, you could have said that. I have tried to write that with "Perhaps a QTREVIEW-1 or similar could resolve the background link automatically as it happens in case of the QTBUG-X keyword.", but I am sorry if it was not clear enough. > It's bad name because QTreeView exists and I > guess lots of people will misread it, like I did. I hadn't realised it was > "Qt > Review" until now. > There could be a "Review-number:" like entry to be inline with the "Task-number" variant, albeit I do not mind commit hash or changeid either. > If you have a concrete suggestion for Gerrit keyword extracting, please > make > it. So far, this discussion has led nowhere and I still don't know what you > want and what you've discovered so far. > As I have discovered earlier, the problem is that people keep putting such entries like this into the commit message: "https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,XXXXX";<https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,33548> As you do not use the form " https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-XXXX"; either but "Task-number: QTBUG-XXXXX <http://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-21035>", the "Review-number: Foobar" would be more inline. Whether "Foobar" is just a number or not, I do not mind. Like I wrote before, I do not know where these words are handled whether in gerrit upstream, our instance, and so forth. I am just speaking from a committer point of view. I would personally like to stick with a more inline solution to the bug number. Laszlo
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
