https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53387
--- Comment #4 from MZMcBride <b...@mzmcbride.com> --- (In reply to comment #3) > And that's why I'm suggesting humans explicitly write "Fixes-Bug" in their > commit message, when applicable. Right. I understand the function and utility of the proposed keyword. > I don't think it's that confusing. We're talking about two keywords, and the > one that marks it fixed has the word "Fixes" in the message. I see this as a design issue, though. With the introduction of a second bug-related keyword, the immediate question becomes: which do I use? Do I use both? Do I use just one? What if it fixes a bug, but for some reason I don't want the bug to be auto-marked as fixed? And this design issue reverberates onto other people who might be trying to use the keyword(s). Does everyone now have to account for both when running reports? > However, we could rename Bug: to Related-Bug: to make it even clearer. Sure, a lot of things could be done. I'm just not sure what issue is trying to be solved here. I don't think there's any significant efficiency gain here. People really interested in auto-marked as fixed could surely set up a script of their own that stalks their merged commits, though doing so would still be a bad idea for the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
