From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92B16139694 for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:48:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 047E81FC07F; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:48:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F191FC05F for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:48:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A23B33418A4; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 13:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1501163303.807.1.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC pre-GLEP] Gentoo Git Workflow From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, Michael Palimaka Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:48:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2fe1858c-ed53-e97c-a967-4e92888ad579@gentoo.org> References: <1500969906.1206.1.camel@gentoo.org> <2caadc57-87da-67fd-6824-8fbeb3e1ddc9@gentoo.org> <2fe1858c-ed53-e97c-a967-4e92888ad579@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-cpajTsZBeadd17kTQeem" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Archives-Salt: 5abd644a-ddca-45d7-99df-2aaa6fad57d9 X-Archives-Hash: 7b3c1b56fd65b3efcf5a555cf8816673 --=-cpajTsZBeadd17kTQeem Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On =C5=9Bro, 2017-07-26 at 19:05 +0200, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/25/2017 02:28 PM, Michael Palimaka wrote: > > Does a bug # really need to always be in the summary line? It can eat > > valuable characters and tags which are pretty popular are equally valid= IMO. >=20 > I would prefer the summary to be informative without having bug ID at > all. Summary should describe the change ,not only "fixes XXX", the bug > reference belongs in body (tags) >=20 I guess I didn't say it verbosely but this obviously should be the case. The bug no is just a cherry at the top. Of course if you can't spare 6 characters, you don't have to put it there. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-cpajTsZBeadd17kTQeem Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKmBAABCgCQFiEEbbsHzE8NrQbqCv5BsHoa6u+0Rk4FAll57yhfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDZE QkIwN0NDNEYwREFEMDZFQTBBRkU0MUIwN0ExQUVBRUZCNDQ2NEUSHG1nb3JueUBn ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJELB6GurvtEZOf68P/1fXvVx9PL/TUODmok12ct55alr6qVGe 7ty9p/cl+aGceTtzsw5OGOJ1YoXQ3W4iKAVix6E8z4RtRxeaDhQOD8kZzk06/U0S 6i3LEOdPdN6rgKzIgIjWHM34NlQ6to07UvvXXrAsRWKgcxuiEF/3EvTuCOSka2PD WEooMiYSUb/pTGEfWnXYuaagD8lLbjvU7MuE4qzhPlW8eqVGL1WA8yw6kjrx0qSZ KUYvh01cV+/JHm4n4MzopBCz3sJyttE5Q0d+dYaxkJVNCSRX411GPcWvXCVv8Rhj HhsTllB+w6xG5IQqxeLTfajD8vq1imT9oIn4JiAPO54+1qPfVz88zRvDPlUfF12i alU7/NYC5HvL0e1lBTqmfwkm/TZ1UtJDws550IyAy+opKGWvY7VATzwVB7StBTew vQD/ndtiqkCH2tg4BGaqKq5QCtJEhIkaQ+WfQVEhjwiHM4OE2ME95mZmJFKsD1ly 2Z0CLgUiH5KKuaP0D1XHQfVsoFk0JTpHAhsntG3pgH6Bt+hQTf2L/qnNasBk/123 PV1HT2UTMruDcf6WVJXASqv2D2d7GeFRSAXdPxsDfhYw1JJTDhDIO0puCAr5oktW 4t82R7f2zTGkyZSpD064sPjnU7MXz1YylOl5EH6lUeG9ykfKE0uM49PDvQonxfaa FsrH2bYhhV2K =SDxN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-cpajTsZBeadd17kTQeem--