Dnia 2015-08-12, o godz. 17:59:03 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <[email protected]> napisał(a):
> hasufell schrieb: > > So, I've just tried to count the ++ for different ideas and even if I > > missed one or two or misread someone's opinion, I think the result is > > pretty clear: > > > > reference the bug only in the summary: 1 > > don't make any of this mandatory: 1 > > "Gentoo-Bug: 123" or similar short form: 9 > > "Gentoo-Bug: <url>" or similar long form: 2-3 > > > > As there was no formal call for a vote, I don't think you can take the > number of voiced opinions as an indicator for the support of an option. > After all, if someone's opinion is already sufficiently represented by > an existing post, that person would not have reason to write to -dev and > further clutter the discussion. > > The only thing you can derive from this counting is that consensus has > not been reached. > > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333531 format, with the > "https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id="; optional for Gentoo Bugzilla, > would be a compromise I can accept. > > I would not like having to redundantly give the bug number when I > already gave the URL. Can we make it clear whether we are allowed/supposed to use the short form: https://bugs.gentoo.org/333531 ? -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpC1eGhgSGd0.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
