On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:58 +0000 (UTC) Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > What about: > > * bug number in summary strongly recommended > ** summary bug number standardized to GB#xxxxxx or #xxxxxx or similar, > short enough for summary, easily identified. GB# would be distinctly > gentoo and could be expanded to KDEB#, GNB# (gnome), FDOB#, etc, for > projects where users likely to want to see the bug likely know what it is. > ** summary lists gentoo bug if any, upstream only if no gentoo bug. > > * bug URL in description required. > ** standardized to Gentoo-Bug: ....... > ** gives people wanting something to click a way to do so > ** U in URL is universal, unambiguously identifies reference for those > unfamiliar with summary shorthand. > ** Multiple allowed, for multiple gentoo bugs or to identify upstream > bugs (using FDO-Bug: or similar) as well. > > That seems a reasonable compromise, given people pulling both ways > in-thread.
Making the bug number in the summary manditory or strongly encouraged leads to wonderful commit messages like: --- cat-pkg: Fix bug #504321. Gentoo-Bug: 504321 --- I would like to see this be more common: --- cat-pkg: Make the thingy work again. Gentoo-Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/504321 or 504321 Idon'tcarewhich ---- If we're limiting the summary to 1 line, 70-75 chars, manditory cat/package and bug number there's not a lot of room to summarize in. -- Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
pgpHa8xvvMufS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
