On 28.03.24 20:29, Karel Balej wrote: > The regressions handling manual claims that regzbot associates patches > fixing an issue with the report based on the occurrence of the > appropriate "Link:" trailers. It reasons that this does not add any > burden on the maintainers/bug fix authors as this is already mandated by > the "Submitting patches" guide. In fact however, the guide encourages > using "Link:" tags for related discussions or issues which the patch > fixes only partially, recommending "Closes:" for full resolutions. > > Despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the "Handling regressions" > guide, regzbot does in fact take the "Closes:" tags into account and > seems to in fact treat them fully equivalently to "Link:" tags. > > Clarify this in the regressions handling guide by always mentioning both > of the tags. Many thx for this and the other patch. I had planned to do something like this myself, but never got around to. There is just one thing that makes me slightly unhappy: this tells readers that they can use both, but leaves the question "what's the difference" respectively "in which situation should I use one or the other" unanswered. To answer that question: in a ideal world developers would use "Closes:" when a change resolves an issue, and "Link" when it's somehow related to a report, but not resolving the problem. But we don't live in that world and I wonder if we ever reach that point where regzbot could act accordingly. Nevertheless I'd say it would be wise to write the docs towards that ideal world. E.g.: tell developers to uses 'Closes:', but in some places briefly hint that "'Link:' works for now, too". I also find the patch description a bit verbose; and it would be good to turn the text upside down: first outline what the patch, then maybe describe the "why". Ciao, Thorsten
