Re: Git workflow GLEP (Was: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC)

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

W dniu pią, 29.09.2017 o godzinie 14∶45 +0200, użytkownik Kristian
Fiskerstrand napisał:
> On 09/28/2017 10:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > >  If so (c) is there
> > > > > a benefit in using a full URI for Bug; or should this be reduced to only
> > > > > the number,
> > > > 
> > > > Only full URIs are acceptable. Numbers are ambiguous. The repository
> > > > and commits within it are mirrored to various sources, can be included
> > > > in external repositories and so on. We don't want to start closing
> > > > accidental bugs all over the place just because someone cherry-picked
> > > > a commit without escaping all references Gentoo developers left.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Which could also be seen as an argument for Gentoo-Bug: XXXXXX
> > > 
> > 
> > And then Gentoo-Closes, Debian-Closes, Fancybuntu-Closes, My-Fun-
> > Upstream-Tracker-Bug...
> 
> Not really, Closes is already used for multiple providers of
> infrastructure such as Bitbucket and GitHub, so here URI is anyways
> needed and isn't specific to Gentoo. Debian bug wouldn't be closed by us
> to begin with, but it'd fit into a generic Reference: tag if we pulled a
> patch from it or it discusses it somehow. Ditto for upstream, that goes
> in Reference as well
> 

How is this an argument for introducing a completely incompatible
and inconsistent concept for the other of the pair?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny