On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:13:59 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
If it is a URL, please make it whatever is already in my browser
address bar. A nice shorthand URL looks pretty but it isn't so pretty
if I have to edit it instead of just hitting copy/paste. When I'm
fixing bugs I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/14/2015 01:04 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:19:10 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote:
I vote for a simple
Bug: 333531
+1
Of course, for external bugs (e.g. in other projects) full URI
should be used.
Best regards,
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:19:10 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote:
I vote for a simple
Bug: 333531
+1
Of course, for external bugs (e.g. in other projects) full URI
should be used.
Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko
pgpwvJxv7YOQ_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015, at 15:04 CDT, Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 19:19:10 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote:
I vote for a simple
Bug: 333531
+1
Of course, for external bugs (e.g. in other projects) full URI
should be used.
+1
signature.asc
Description: PGP
I vote for a simple
Bug: 333531
If it is going to be any longer than that, then you need to make sure
it is part of the commit message template magic. Because I'm surely
not the only one who is lazy and thus averse to typing anything longer
for the most common use case: Gentoo bugs.
--
Cheers,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I vote for a simple
Bug: 333531
If it is going to be any longer than that, then you need to make sure
it is part of the commit message template magic. Because I'm surely
not the only one who is lazy and thus averse to
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:03:52 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can we make it clear whether we are allowed/supposed to use the short
form:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/333531
?
I'd like this to be the preferred form. It's cleaner, the show_bug.cgi=id? is
just noise.
If we do go
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
On 08/12/2015 05:59 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
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
Michał Górny schrieb:
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
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
Dnia 2015-08-12, o godz. 17:59:03
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org 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
Dnia 2015-08-12, o godz. 18:25:07
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Michał Górny schrieb:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/08/15 12:34 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-12, o godz. 18:25:07 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
chith...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
Michał Górny schrieb:
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333531 format,
with the
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:40 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
On 08/12/2015 08:38 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:40 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
On 08/12/2015 07:48 PM, Dmitry Yu Okunev wrote:
On 08/12/2015 08:38 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:40 AM, hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
Hi!
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, Duncan wrote:
Ryan Hill posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:17:30 -0600 as excerpted:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:58 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
What about:
* bug number in summary strongly recommended
Making the bug number in the summary
On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100
packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier
partial rollback?
I think you've misread The rule
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100
packages? Or should that be split into 100 commits for easier
partial rollback?
On 08/11/2015 01:49 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 August 2015 at 20:57, Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org wrote:
The cat/pn rule is tricky anyway: what if one commit touches 100
packages? Or should that be split
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
** summary bug number standardized to GB#xx or #xx or similar,
short enough for summary, easily identified. GB# would be distinctly
gentoo and could be expanded to KDEB#, GNB# (gnome), FDOB#, etc, for
If you're going
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:58 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
What about:
* bug number in summary strongly recommended
** summary bug number standardized to GB#xx or #xx or similar,
short enough for summary, easily identified. GB# would be distinctly
gentoo and could
Ryan Hill posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 18:17:30 -0600 as excerpted:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:25:58 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
What about:
* bug number in summary strongly recommended
Making the bug number in the summary manditory or strongly encouraged
leads to wonderful
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:43:29 +0300
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:11:02 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
2. Bug number can be easily typed, URL has to be copied or
generated by some tool.
So, please remind me, how many times the 'easy typing' got
Gordon Pettey posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:57:56 -0500 as excerpted:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
** summary bug number standardized to GB#xx or #xx or similar,
short enough for summary, easily identified. GB# would be distinctly
gentoo and
hasufell posted on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:02:43 +0200 as excerpted:
On 08/10/2015 02:51 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
This is not a matter of going l33t, this is a matter of getting rid of
redundant and pretty much useless data all the same through
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:44:09 +0300
Andrew Savchenko birc...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:56:05 +0200 Michał Górny wrote:
Dnia 2015-08-09, o godz. 16:09:29
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 08/09/2015 03:58 PM, Michael Weber wrote:
commit:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 03:02:43 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/10/2015 02:51 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2015, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
This is not a matter of going l33t, this is a matter of getting rid
of redundant and pretty much useless data all the same
29 matches
Mail list logo
