On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:14:01 +0200 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Florian, all - > > First, thanks for your work on adding the bugzilla comments when patches > referencing bugs get merged. I find it useful. > > Recently however there was a comment about a commit referencing a commit > referencing the bug report. Turns out the comment was missing one level > of indirection, it was really about a commit referencing a commit > referencing a commit referencing the bug [1]. > > Do we really need go that far, or is that a bug in your scripts? I think > three levels of indirection is more noise than signal; two might be > still be okay. What do others think? > > BR, > Jani. > > > [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52424#c56 Is it really a problem? I can change it of course, but I doubt it is worth the hassle. At the moment I just record sha1 -> bug associations and if in a commit message, the mentioned (full!) sha1 is associated to a bug, I associate that commit with that bug. If someone goes to the trouble to actually mention the sha1 in a commit message, that probably means it really is an important connection. And if that commit is associated with a bug, then that should mean something too. Think about multiple attempts to fix a bug which get always reverted because the hardware is really acting up in different ways with every attempt... As it is, I don't think it is worth the trouble. If you feel strongly about the message, I can reword it to be somewhat unspecific about the level of indirection... what do you think? Regards, Flo p.s.: sorry for the late response, I'm having a bit of trouble with my mail setup at the moment and too much to do... _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
