michael.vogt at canonical.com
Thu Jan 21 14:12:28 UTC 2016
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:51:24AM -0200, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Michael Vogt <michael.vogt at canonical.com>
> I would prefer to keep the package list in the summary, even if it cuts
> down on space a bit. The reason is that it gives much useful context for
> the summary sentence itself For example, reading through the commits list
> here makes it clear that committers naturally think about a local context
> when cooking the summary:
> The package list qualifies that context in a very useful way.
> About the additional metadata, "Thanks:" sounds great as it gives another
> incentive to a good practice.
> I'm not so sure about "Affects:" though. It seems to the wrong end of it,
> in the sense that it's impossible to have an exhaustive list of who's
> affected by something, and it will often be missed. I'd prefer to keep the
> bug as the place that tracks who's affected by a given issue, as it has
> more room and may be edited after the commit is made.
Yeah, if the affected package list is put into the summary then there
is no need to have something like "Affects:".
> I'd also keep the term as "Closes:" and "Updates:" rather than "LP:", as
> that's more clearly indicating whether it's just related to the issue or a
> fix for it.
I was mostly suggesting LP over Closes because git-buildpackage dch
will pick up `LP` and put it in the debian/changelog and we get
automatic closing of bugs for free this way. The `Closes` is
traditionally used for closing bugreports in the debian BTS. I guess
as long as we don't have to close bugs in the debian BTS I can simply
write a script that 's/Closes:/LP:/g'. I will look into the best way
to hook into git-dch.
More information about the snappy-devel