On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:17 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:42:23AM -0600, Shawn Jacobson wrote:
> 
> > Just a quick comment...the third format option suggested...
> > fixed bug 547: some log message
> > invalid bug 547: some log message
> > worksforme bug 547: some log message
> > ...is not possible using bugtraq properties in Subversion.
> 
> Agreed - this is not good.

We could request from TortoiseSVN to add the extra bugtraq property.
They don't have it yet, and it seems like a step to the right direction.
Let's not consider this to be a problem yet.

> But:
> 
> Using this syntax it would at least be easy to close one bug and add
> a comment to another one. 

But it wouldn't be necessary, as a format, to accomplish that. It would
make it harder to say:

worksforme bug 547:
fixed bug 768: some log message

since "worksforme bug 547:" would have an empty log message and could be
interpreted as user error. 

While we are throwing ideas, please consider that we'd like to implement
this some day, and we wouldn't want closing bugs to intefere with it.

http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=647

And doesn't seem like it would if the status is after the top-level
common log message.

e.g. 

common log message
bug 789: specific log message
status 789: resolved

would be ok, but the following could cause problems (but shouldn't if we
parse complete lines and remove the status line entirely)

status 789: resolved
common log message
bug 789: specific log message

> Using the "other" syntax we would need to expand it to
> 
> status 547: resolved
> bug 547: some log message
> 
> Where the bug id in the status-line would be of course be optional
> if you're referring to only one bug (which should be the majority of
> all cases).

It may also be possible to say:

status 547 548 755: resolved

or

status 547: fixed
status 548,622: reopened
status 755: worksforme
bug 547: the log message

We could close multiple bugs in a single commit (e.g. the bug and it's
"metabug" or "group bug"). In that case we'd also need a
status_split_regex (similar to bugid_split_regex) in glue.conf

In a sense, we could permit multiple status lines (multiple bug ids
associated with a new status). I see this as more flexible than:

worksforme bug 548: log message


_______________________________________________
scmbug-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users

Reply via email to