From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1098B1382BD for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B01DE0C20; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:58:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31DB6E0C00 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:58:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.100.0.6] (host-37-191-220-247.lynet.no [37.191.220.247]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: k_f) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B756433FEDE for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:58:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] bugs.g.o: Killing VERIFIED state, possibly introducing STABILIZED References: <20160616150213.47f09bc4.mgorny@gentoo.org> <201606162357.12178.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <5763A8B2.2010907@gentoo.org> <20160617095015.2d265d64.mgorny@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Kristian Fiskerstrand Message-ID: <3762b8cf-1285-fbb2-121e-9b16e188818c@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:58:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 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 In-Reply-To: <20160617095015.2d265d64.mgorny@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: fc5960d1-2be3-402c-a109-8790decad72e X-Archives-Hash: 3c95899209d3eb724f4d2d68d29330d5 [No OpenPGP signature atm, smartcard not cooperating, this is really bad form :|] On 06/17/2016 09:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Bugzilla supports adding any number of extra fields. However, isn't > the URL field sufficient for this? I'd rather not increase the size of > the form if there's not a big need for that. > I can imagine situations where URL field is used for bug description itself, and as such isn't available for use for commit message. I'd imagine this to be more a "see also" style field -- Kristian Fiskerstrand OpenPGP certificate reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3