----- Original Message ----- > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <[email protected]> > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]>, "Federico Simoncelli" > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:20:46 PM > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates. > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:59:16PM -0400, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <[email protected]> > > > > To: "Omer Frenkel" <[email protected]> > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:54:28 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit > > > > templates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Omer Frenkel" <[email protected]> > > > > > To: "Mike Kolesnik" <[email protected]> > > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:36:54 AM > > > > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit > > > > > templates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Mike Kolesnik" <[email protected]> > > > > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]> > > > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:36:13 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit > > > > > > templates. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > From: "Mike Kolesnik" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Cc: [email protected], "Dan Kenigsberg" > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:27:05 PM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit > > > > > > > > templates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > To: "Doron Fediuck" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: [email protected], "Alon Bar-Lev" > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>, > > > > > > > > > > "Igor > > > > > > > > > > Lvovsky" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:49:18 PM > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm > > > > > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > > > > templates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bug-Id: BZ#888888 dummy bz1 > > > > > > > > > > > Bug-Id: BZ#888889 dummy bz2 > > > > > > > > > > > Bug-Id: BZ#888890 dummy bz2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it's fine, though I find the "BZ#" string > > > > > > > > > > quite > > > > > > > > > > redundant > > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > it appears after "Bug-Id: " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The BZ# was added (or kept) in order to allow <some> > > > > > > > > > flexibility > > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > referencing to different bug tracking systems > > > > > > > > > (multiple > > > > > > > > > name-spaces). For example, we may accept conventions > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > LP# > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > ubuntu launchpad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not simply use a bug link, then? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is long... I think the bug description is more > > > > > > > important, > > > > > > > providing both URL and description will make way too > > > > > > > long. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bug titles aren't constant. Also they provide little value > > > > > > as > > > > > > most > > > > > > of > > > > > > the time the bug decription and reproduction steps are much > > > > > > more > > > > > > informative than what the title says. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also in the engine we have lived a long time with bug URL > > > > > > in > > > > > > the > > > > > > comment and it was very convenient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, i find bug url much more convenient than bug title > > > > +1, most of the time the bug titles don't actually even point > > > > to > > > > what > > > > the problem actually was but rather what the reporter thought > > > > it > > > > was. > > > > Ok. Before this thread finds it way to the land of undecided > > discussions, let's sum it up: > > > > Bug-Id: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/888890 > > > > The commit message should be explicit enough to describe the nature > > of > > the fixed bug. > > > > Dan. > > +1. > Looks very good, as indeed BZ $SUBJECT does not always reflect the > real issue.
+1 Although maybe Bug-Url key is more appropriate ;) > > If anyone objects, please respond. > _______________________________________________ > Arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
