Am Donnerstag, dem 14.09.2023 um 11:42 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo: > OK! :-) Let's see how this relates to the 2 use cases we are talking > about: > > 1. Use "Fixes:" (et al) in commit msg to tell "the hook" to close the > bug. > > This "action" implies that the commit we are pushing upstream > "Applies:" to that bug report; it has no added value. > > 2. Use 'Change-Id'... > > This also implies that the commit we are pushing upstream "Applies:" > to that bug report related to that [PATCH]; no added value also. > > So, when and only when we will implement a 'Change-Id' requirement > adding an 'Applies' metadata is not useful for linking [PATCH]es to a > bug report. > > Did I miss something? On "Fixes:" vs. "Applies:" etc: the point of having more keywords is that "Fixes:" implies a bug, whereas more general wording is preferable when pushing a patch that simply updates a package. I just wrote some example wordings and wanted all of us to agree on the one that makes "the most sense"; alas it got misinterpreted.
> > > Maybe if Vagrant put something like: > > > > Fixes: <debbugs.debian.org/NNNNN> that could cause problems? But > > then the URL is different, so we could filter out these, so I don't > > see the problem, if we use URLs. > > Yes we are saying the same thing! :-) > > Sorry I've made confusion but Vagrant's concern was expressed > _before_ someone proposed (maybe Liliana) to use namespaced URIs. > > Vagrant please: do you confirm that using URLs "Fixes: > <issues.guix.gnu.org/NNNNNN>" is OK for your usecase? I actually prefer cool URLs myself, my format was "Fixes: [optional description] <URL>" > > > To be cristal clear: I think that "the other proposal" (that is use > "Fixes:" and alike in commit msg to close the provided bug num) will > be **superseeded** when all the tools to manage (first of all: CLI > query tool) the 'Change-Id' preudo-header/footer :-D Well I still very much prefer human readable footers, but I'm perhaps a little lonely in this debate. Cheers > > >