On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:20:07 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:05:44PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:57:33 +0100, Daniel Berrange wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:51:50AM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote: [...] > > > The point is for libvirt to follow normal practice from GitLab, so that > > > contributors don't have to know about libvirt specific rules for contributing > > > to the project. Telling users to change the normal issue syntax into a URL > > > whenever they send a patch is not something we should be doing. > > > > Even if they are flawed?! Just mentioning a random number in the commit > > message may be nice for people looking at the code via web-ui. That is > > nice but you can't do much there. But I and many other look at the code > > in the local checkout and 'git' doesn't randomly decide to expand the > > number to the gitlab uri and make it clickable. > > > > Now if I'd like to look at the issue after some time I'll e.g. when > > going through git-blame I'll have to open the browser, open gitlab, find > > the project and find the issue rather than just click a link. That's > > stupid. If gitlab can't deal with the link, it's frankly broken and we > > should not give in to a broken approach just because everybody else > > does. > > It isn't about giving in. Again the point is to not needlessly create > special rules for contributing to libvirt, because every special rule > we add is another thing for contributors to stumble over. Some rules > are worth it because they have meaningful benefits such as the use of > Signed-off-by/DCO. The mentioning of full URLs instead of the normal > issue reference syntax does not have a meaningful benefit that > justifies a libvirt special rule for contributions. I gave an examples of two specific meaningful benefit above: 1) it provides a clickable link without second guessing where to go for command line users 2) provides stable reference to the hosting of issues Note that for example github uses exactly the same format for referencing issues. That means that it's unclear what we are referring. Just observe the following behaviours on the commit that was just pushed and Jano helpfully for this demonstration included both versions: 1) gitlab: libvirt/libvirt https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt/-/commit/9c58b6eb0090b978f44299b22ff4f8d3be3a240f Here I'd expect a clickable link but there isn't one. I have no idea why. You can see that gitlab doesn't recognize it. I'm not sure whether the format Jano chose is bad, but this already enforces some kind of form we need to conform to. 2) gitlab: pipo.sk/libvirt https://gitlab.com/pipo.sk/libvirt/-/commit/9c58b6eb0090b978f44299b22ff4f8d3be3a240f Unsurprisingly it doesn't work here, but the full link is shortened and still points to the correct issue. 3) github: libvirt/libvirt https://github.com/libvirt/libvirt/commit/9c58b6eb0090b978f44299b22ff4f8d3be3a240f As expected #23 points to nothing, but the full link still points to the issue even cross-hosting. 4) github: pipo/libvirt (plus I've created 23 test issues in my fork) https://gitlab.com/pipo.sk/libvirt/-/commit/9c58b6eb0090b978f44299b22ff4f8d3be3a240f Now this is fun. '#23' points to the local issue #23 in my fork while the full link still points to the issue. The shortened issue names are ambiguous and the hosting has no way in figuring out where to point to. Providing full URL is not something which should be described as "no meaningful benefit" but it actively disambiguates the links regardless of where it's hosted or refered from.
