Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates.

[Moti Asayag]

On 08/27/2012 02:46 PM, Doron Fediuck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>, "Federico Simoncelli" <fsimonce at redhat.com>
>> Cc: arch at ovirt.org
>> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:20:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 02:59:16PM -0400, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi at redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: arch at ovirt.org
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:54:28 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit
>>>> templates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: "Mike Kolesnik" <mkolesni at redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: arch at ovirt.org
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 11:36:54 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit
>>>>> templates.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Mike Kolesnik" <mkolesni at redhat.com>
>>>>>> To: "Alon Bar-Lev" <alonbl at redhat.com>
>>>>>> Cc: arch at ovirt.org
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:36:13 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit
>>>>>> templates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- 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 agree, i find bug url much more convenient than bug title
>>>> +1, most of the time the bug titles don't actually even point to
>>>> what
>>>> the problem actually was but rather what the reporter thought it
>>>> was.
>>
>> Ok. Before this thread finds it way to the land of undecided
>> discussions, let's sum it up:
>>
>>   Bug-Id: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/888890
>>
>> The commit message should be explicit enough to describe the nature
>> of
>> the fixed bug.
>>
>> Dan.
> 
> +1.
> Looks very good, as indeed BZ $SUBJECT does not always reflect the real issue.
> 

+1

> If anyone objects, please respond.
> _______________________________________________
> Arch mailing list
> Arch at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>