Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates.

[Alon Bar-Lev]

----- 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.

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

Regards,
Alon.