Re: [workflow] Automatically close bug report when a patch is committed

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Donnerstag, dem 14.09.2023 um 11:42 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
> OK! :-)  Let's see how this relates to the 2 use cases we are talking
> about:
> 
> 1. Use "Fixes:" (et al) in commit msg to tell "the hook" to close the
> bug.
> 
> This "action" implies that the commit we are pushing upstream
> "Applies:" to that bug report; it has no added value.
> 
> 2. Use 'Change-Id'...
> 
> This also implies that the commit we are pushing upstream "Applies:"
> to that bug report related to that [PATCH]; no added value also.
> 
> So, when and only when we will implement a 'Change-Id' requirement
> adding an 'Applies' metadata is not useful for linking [PATCH]es to a
> bug report.
> 
> Did I miss something?
On "Fixes:" vs. "Applies:" etc: the point of having more keywords is
that "Fixes:" implies a bug, whereas more general wording is preferable
when pushing a patch that simply updates a package.  I just wrote some
example wordings and wanted all of us to agree on the one that makes
"the most sense"; alas it got misinterpreted.

> 
> > Maybe if Vagrant put something like:
> > 
> > Fixes: <debbugs.debian.org/NNNNN> that could cause problems?  But
> > then the URL is different, so we could filter out these, so I don't
> > see the problem, if we use URLs.
> 
> Yes we are saying the same thing! :-)
> 
> Sorry I've made confusion but Vagrant's concern was expressed
> _before_ someone proposed (maybe Liliana) to use namespaced URIs.
> 
> Vagrant please: do you confirm that using URLs "Fixes:
> <issues.guix.gnu.org/NNNNNN>" is OK for your usecase?
I actually prefer cool URLs myself, my format was 
"Fixes: [optional description] <URL>"

> > 
> To be cristal clear: I think that "the other proposal" (that is use
> "Fixes:" and alike in commit msg to close the provided bug num) will
> be **superseeded** when all the tools to manage (first of all: CLI
> query tool) the 'Change-Id' preudo-header/footer :-D
Well I still very much prefer human readable footers, but I'm perhaps a
little lonely in this debate.

Cheers
> > >