[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Giovanni Biscuolo
Subject: Re: [workflow] Automatically close bug report when a patch is committed
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:48:14 +0200

Maxim Cournoyer <> writes:


> I like the 'Closes: ' trailer idea; it's simple.  However, it'd need to
> be something added locally, either the user typing it out (unlikely for
> most contributors) or via some mumi wizardry (it's unlikely that all
> users will use mumi), which means its usage (and value) would depend on
> how motivated individuals are to learn these new tricks.

I agree: the ratio, or better usecase, of my /trivial/ (in design, not
in implementation) initial proposal [1] was to try to help committers
closing bugs "in one go" by adding proper information to the commit
message, e.g. "Closes: #NNNNN"

It was _not_ intended for contributors, also because they could _not_
know that **specific** patch in a patch series will really close a
**whole** bug report: that's only a judgement of the committer.

Also, my ratio was influenced by my misunderstanding of a series of bug
closing actions performed by Vagrant (see [1] for details): the problem
in the majority (all?) of those cases was **not** that the committer
simply forgot to close the related bug report /but/ that bug reports
containing (different) patches for the _same_ package were not linked
each other: the solution to this class of problems in obviously not
"Automatically close bug report when a patch is committed", it's
something else [2]

> On the other hands, having Change-Ids added by a pre-commit hook
> automatically would means the user doesn't need to do anything special
> other than using git, and we could still infer useful information at any
> time (in a server hook, or as a batch process).
> For this reason, I think we could have both (why not?  Change-Ids by
> themselves provide some value already -- traceability between our git
> history and guix-patches).

I agree: just having 'Change-Ids' alone already provide some added
value, even if we still miss the tooling (server side git hook, batch

Thanks!  Gio'



Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]