On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/7/14 9:10 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Alexis La Goutte
>> > <alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:alexis.lagoutte@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> > > It would be nice to have different tags for Refs-Bug and
>> > Fixes-Bug, and have
>> > > the bugzilla integration do The Right Thing for changes that refer
>> > to but do
>> > > not fix a bug. Gerald, how easy is this? I believe OpenStack has a
>> > set of
>> > > tags they use which we might look to for inspiration?
>> > +1
>> > I like OpenStack tags :
>> >
>> > Closes-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Closes-Bug' if the commit is intended
>> > to
>> > fully fix and close the bug being referenced.
>> > Partial-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Partial-Bug' if the commit is only a
>> > partial fix and more work is needed.
>> > Related-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Related-Bug' if the commit is merely
>> > related to the referenced bug.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Including_external_references
>>
>> How would Partial-Bug and Related-Bug differ for our purposes? Wouldn't
>> they do the same thing (i.e. add a comment to the bug)? Could we get
>> away with two tags:
>>
>> Ping-Bug: 12345 -- Add a comment to bug 12345
>> Bug (or Closes-Bug): 12345 -- Add a comment and mark it RESOLVED FIXED.
>
>
> Just "Ping-Bug" and "Bug" works for me.
+1
(or Comment-Bug and Closes-Bug ?)
>
>>
>>
>> > On a related note, Gerrit has stopped commenting when a new patchset is
>> > uploaded referencing a bug (I assume because it wasn't super-useful and
>> > was causing noise). It would still be useful though, I think, if it add
>> > a comment for new changes (just not for new patchsets within each
>> > change) if that is possible.
>>
>> I tried to modify the "patchset-created" rule to only add a comment for
>> the first change. In at least one case subsequent revisions were
>> spamming the bug with the same comment. It looks like the rule had a
>> bug. It should be fixed now.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe