Messages in this thread | | | From | Roland Dreier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 17/17] xen: disable MSI | Date | Wed, 27 May 2009 15:03:42 -0700 |
| |
> Pu another way: if they actually add value in highlighting the commits > that _should_ stand out, then hey, by all means, keep such ones. I would > not at all object if it was an issue of > > [ Impact: fix bugzilla entry 455123 ]
I wonder if it's really worth having such a visually distinctive style for tagging things that fix bugzilla entries. I've been just writing out in English the bug information -- eg a recent changelog contains
This patch fixes <https://bugs.openfabrics.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1571>, an NFS/RDMA server crash.
I could see adding a tag along the lines of tested-by, reported-by, reviewed-by, etc. Maybe something like
Closes-bug: <URL>
so the above language would become
Closes-bug: https://bugs.openfabrics.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1571
And then "git log|grep 'Closes-bug:'" or "git log|grep '<bug URL>'" becomes interesting...
> [ Impact: fix user-triggerable oops ]
This I think gets close to the never-ending argument about tagging "security" bugs. It might not be obvious immediately that a given change fixes a user-triggerable oops and grepping the log for commits that claim to fix a certain type of problem is quite likely to miss some such fixes.
In the case where I know that a commit *does* fix a user-triggerable oops, I try to note it in the changelog by saying, "This fixes an oops that can be triggered by a user passing in garbage input xyz..." but I'm not sure if we want to put that in a standardized greppable form.
- R.
| |