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

[Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1741 bytes --]

On 09/28/2017 09:46 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 28.09.2017 o godzinie 11∶06 +0200, użytkownik Kristian
> Fiskerstrand napisał:

>> (2)(a) Should Bug be a generic indicator for bug information, including
>> upstream bugs, or; (b) do we want to separate upstream / other
>> information in e.g a References: field that can be used for other bugs
>> and descriptions (including security advisories etc).
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, one indicator for all bugs is enough,
> especially that in some cases projects have Gentoo upstream which blur
> the line between upstream and downstream bugs.
> 
> As for CVEs and other uncommon stuff, I don't have a strong opinion. If
> you expect some specific machine action for them, it'd be better to have
> a unique tag though.

I'm actually thinking more of link to things like advisories and
mailing list discussions with a Reference tag in this case, which can
also be used along with e.g a URI to e.g a debian bugtracker for same
issue if picking a patch etc

> 
>>  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

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]