On 11/15/18 6:40 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > I think part of the problem domain here isn't just bugs that > deliberately take up multiple PRs, but bugs where the first fix is > incorrect or incomplete and needs to be amended by a later patch. Well, but that would deserve getting tracked in a separate issue (flagged as "regression" and referring to the original issue), wouldn't it? > There's been a bit of trouble backporting things when those get > missed. :/ I can imagine, but I also don't think that adding this field is making things worse in that respect. > It looks like the PR is an integer field and there's a "Link values to > URL" pattern you can fill in to make links clickable, which I haven't > seen before. Me neither, I found it in the Redmine documentation and found it quite nifty: http://www.redmine.org/projects/redmine/wiki/RedmineCustomFields > Was the use of an integer ID and the auto-generated URL > important rather than just having a text box which could contain > multiple URLs? Did you try that and the URLs aren't clickable? Just having a text box did not look like much of an improvement to the current approach of pasting the URL into a comment field. I was looking for a more structured approach to establish a relationship between an issue and the corresponding PR that fixes it (that probably shows my database background here). There is actually a custom "Link" field for URLs, but that too would only support a single link... Lenz -- SUSE Linux GmbH - Maxfeldstr. 5 - 90409 Nuernberg (Germany) GF:Felix Imendörffer,Jane Smithard,Graham Norton,HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
