Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > But I haven't really found a use for "Fixes" in machine-readable format. > I don't _mind_ people doing it if they do have a use (and I'd even > consider doing it myself if I were shown that it was useful). In the > meantime, I don't know if we want to state a project preference against > it. I've seen "Fixes: bug number" in projects that maintain bug databases and automatically updates the status of the named bug when a commit with such a footer hits certain integration branches; the utility of such a usecase would be fairly obvious. But "Fixes: <commit>" makes me nervous. One reason is because a commit very often introduces multiple bugs (or no bugs at all), so which one (or more) of the bug is corrected cannot be read from such a footer that _only_ blames a particular commit. Side note: also "fixes:" footer would cast a claim made when a commit was created in stone---which may later turn out to be false. But the issue is not unique to "Fixes: <commit>"; "Fixes: <bugid>" suffers exactly from the same problem. An interesting aspect of "Fixes: <commit>" is that we can use it to easily see who is the buggiest by dividing number of buggy commit by number of total commits per author ;-) I'd rather not to see people adding random footers whose utility is dubious, but for this particular one, I am not against it strongly enough to be tempted to declare an immediate ban.
