On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 11:39:22AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > -Please check the link to make sure that it is actually working and points > -to the relevant message. > +If the URL points to a bug report that is fixed by the patch, use 'Closes:' > +instead. This is not specifically a comment about your additional diff, but this sprang to mind (again) while reading it. I have been wondering if this sort of thing will lead to inconsistency. Reports sometimes report more than one issue at once. Other times a patch that is (intentionally) not a complete fix for the problem. Using Closes: in those cases is not really true, as it does not close the report. Having a series of N patches, each of which purport to close an issue, also doesn't seem quite right. The word Closes has a meaning and "forcing" the use of Closes: for reports implies meaning that may not be present. I suppose it is true that just because documentation or checkpatch says to do something, doesn't mean that you **have** to do it but I don't want to be the one on the Rx side of a rant...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
