Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates.

[Alon Bar-Lev]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Kolesnik" <mkolesni at redhat.com>
> To: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken at redhat.com>
> Cc: arch at ovirt.org
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:53:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Unifying (parts of) engine and vdsm commit templates.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > ----- 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
> 
> Although maybe Bug-Url key is more appropriate ;)


Hello All,

I am so sorry to bother you for such small issues.

However when 'Bug-Id: ' was suggested it was indeed bug id (source#number).

Now that all in favour of specifying URL, and consider the above note of Mike,
do you prefer keeping the 'Bug-Id: ' or Use 'Bug-Url: '?

I am in favour of Bug-Url, as it is indeed Url now.

Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.