[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC round 3: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines

gregor herrmann wrote:
> I agree that that's not completely obvious/intuitive for "newcomers"
> but consumers of the patch format (command line tools, web
> interfaces, ...) are free to expand them to URLs, and those
> interfaces are probably more used than the raw source packages by the
> people who are not intimate with the semantics of the used bug
> trackers.

Yes, but this is a format for sharing between distributions as well. It
may be that they have now idea what "LP" means, and where to expand it
to. Also, some suggestions have used RT and BTS, RT is a system, not an
instance, and BTS is a generic term, so what do you use for instances?
Also, in order for tools to expand these, they need a complete list of
every bug tracker everywhere, do you really want to try and maintain

It may be that we have slightly different workflows, but I tend to have
a bug open in my browser when working on it, so it's trivial to grab
the URL. In addition the Debian BTS doesn't inject URLs in to the
messages, so they are not to hand if you are just going on an email
from a bug.



Reply to: