Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates.

[Mike Kolesnik]

----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Kolesnik" <mkolesni at redhat.com>
> > To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
> > Cc: arch at ovirt.org, "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:27:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "Doron Fediuck" <dfediuck at redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: arch at ovirt.org, "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>, "Igor
> > > > Lvovsky" <ilvovsky at redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:49:18 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit
> > > > templates.
> > > 
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Bug-Id: BZ#888888 dummy bz1
> > > > >     Bug-Id: BZ#888889 dummy bz2
> > > > >     Bug-Id: BZ#888890 dummy bz2
> > > > 
> > > > I think it's fine, though I find the "BZ#" string quite
> > > > redundant
> > > > when
> > > > it appears after "Bug-Id: "
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The BZ# was added (or kept) in order to allow <some> flexibility
> > > when
> > > referencing to different bug tracking systems (multiple
> > > name-spaces). For example, we may accept conventions of LP# for
> > > ubuntu launchpad.
> > 
> > Why not simply use a bug link, then?
> 
> It is long... I think the bug description is more important,
> providing both URL and description will make way too long.

Bug titles aren't constant. Also they provide little value as most of the time the bug decription and reproduction steps are much more informative than what the title says.

Also in the engine we have lived a long time with bug URL in the comment and it was very convenient.

> 
> I am fine with dropping the prefix as well, just wanted to explain
> why I suggested to use it.
> 
> Regards,
> Alon.
>