[PATCH 1/1] UBUNTU: SAUCE: Adopt the use of "BugLink:" lines in git commit messages.

[Stefan Bader]

Steve Conklin wrote:
> On 05/02/2009 04:16 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 04:21:51PM -0700, Brad Figg wrote:
>>> Why wouldn't your changes also show up in the output and thus in then
>>> changelog?
>> They would indeed.  There is a difference in what you and I think we are
>> trying to achieve here :).
>>
>> I thought the overall intent was that we can switch from using the
>> Bug:#123456 form which has no meaning outside the Ubuntu community to
>> using the BugLink: http://www.launchpad.net/bug/123456 form which is
>> meaningful to everyone and we can thus leave in our upstream
>> submissions.  Both giving us Janitor support for patches which pass via
>> upstream and credit in the community.
>>
>> As I understand your change you are putting the following into the
>> output and therefore the debian/changelog:
>>
>> 	- LP: #123456
>>         - Buglink: http:.../123456
>>
>> I don't think we are trying to get the latter line into the
>> debian/changelog.  What I thought we were after was the extraction of
>> bug numbers from the git changelog from either of the following forms:
>>
>> 	Bug: #123456
>> or
>> 	BugLink: http:..../123456
>>
>> But outputing that as just this form for debian/changelog:
>>
>> 	- LP: #123456
>>
>> -apw
>>
> 
> Here's a further request for comment -
> 
> I'm in the process of cleaning up the patches that we are carrying in
> the hardy netbook-lpia branch. These get reapplied to the hardy
> distro when we periodically rebase them. I'm already removing
> whitespace errors in these so that they apply cleanly each time.
> Tim suggested that I also add whitespace to the commit text on these
> where needed to prevent junk like "OriginalAuthor" from being
> appended to the Subject lines by git.
> 
> My intent was to add a hook in the rebasing script optionally
> run a script against all the patches to be rebased, before
> they are applied. This will allow me to fix the problems
> above, but would also allow me to to make the BugLink changes
> desribed above to all the patches we are carrying during the
> rebase. This should also apply easily to other possible uses.
> 
> Any scripts run against the tree as part of a rebase should be
> added and committed, with a commit text describing that they
> were run as part of a certain rebase. I don't think it's good
> to automatically call the same script for every rebase, as these
> are designed to make one-time sets of changes. Committing them
> will preserve the history of what was done.
> 
> What does the team think of this approach in general, and
> specifically about being used to add the BugLink lines?
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
The approach itself might be helpful. I am just not sure how important the 
BugLink is for patches in any Hardy as we won't push upstream from there, or do we?

Stefan


-- 

When all other means of communication fail, try words!