https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53387
--- Comment #6 from Matthew Flaschen <mflasc...@wikimedia.org> --- (In reply to comment #4) > 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? You use Fixes-Bug if it it fixes the bug. You use Bug otherwise. I can't think of any scenario you would tag it Fixes-Bug but not want it marked fixed. In that unlikely case, you would use Bug. > 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? I don't think there are any reports on bug status built on parsing commit message. > 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. I disagree. I frequently have to go and manually change fixed bugs from PATCH_TO_REVIEW to FIXED, both things I have fixed and things other people have fixed. I'm obviously not the only one. > 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. It makes no sense for everyone to do it separately. This is really very common functionality for integrations between bug trackers and version control. -- 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
