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 8113D1396D0 for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:32:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AAA2F2BC01F; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:32:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 736692BC01B; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:32:18 +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 DDF3233BE2E; Sat, 30 Sep 2017 17:32:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1506792732.5672.0.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: Git workflow GLEP (Was: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items, council meeting 8/October/2017 18:00 UTC) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo dev announce Cc: council@gentoo.org Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2017 19:32:12 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <2032312.gCecMtFXeN@porto> <1506452291.25101.14.camel@gentoo.org> <1506540293.1169.2.camel@gentoo.org> <1506627995.15843.5.camel@gentoo.org> <559f083a-8d97-8a66-b917-e318227d8d33@gentoo.org> <1506629873.15843.7.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: eb60d44e-3886-4f2d-b9cc-b7e6c143cb90 X-Archives-Hash: e8ef66506a100ec62e96d6c964047865 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