On 9/15/21 1:54 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 15. 09. 21 13:00, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 15. 09. 21 v 12:57 Petr Menšík napsal(a):
>> Hi Sahana,
>> it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use
>> to watch the progress.
> The commit message should contain reference to the change proposal IMO
something similar to mass rebuilds before new release. They also
have URL to details. I think all non-maintainer commits should have some
reference to details, why is it done.
I've never referenced the Bugzilla ID or change proposal when I've
done Python 3.X rebuilds and I have never heard somebody that it
mattered to them.
Referencing the change in the commit message is actually a good idea
in retrospect. However, referencing a bug ID might create a lot of
noise, we once did that here:
This bug is something I had on mind. But I would expect it would be only
used as Depends: field on bugs filled to failed components. I were
looking for a bug number to add to block
People kept associating unrelated EPEL updates with this for months,
as "fedpkg update" or some other clever thing automatically added that
bug ID to them.
Indeed, there were a lot of EPEL builds referencing Fedora bug. If that
were done by any existing tool, it should be fixed. I doubt we ever want
EPEL builds to directly reference Fedora builds. It might be done in
rare cases by a person, but I doubt it should ever be done by any
automated tool. Maybe if it had bug cloned to EPEL, it might followed
clone with matching product for the build.
I think we miss here way to make that bug only related. It might be
added to bodhi updates of such builds, but it should not switch state of
referenced bug in any way, let alone close it. It should just be
clickable link from bodhi update. It should be considered only as
indication similar problem had multiple packages. Would such feature
make sense also to others?
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/