Re: [Wireshark-commits] master 599b880: Handle the UTC timestamps in NetMon 2.3 files.

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Gerald Combs <gerald () wireshark org> wrote:

> On 7/7/14 9:10 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Alexis La Goutte
> > <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com <mailto:alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com
>
>
> >     > It would be nice to have different tags for Refs-Bug and
> >     Fixes-Bug, and have
> >     > the bugzilla integration do The Right Thing for changes that refer
> >     to but do
> >     > not fix a bug. Gerald, how easy is this? I believe OpenStack has a
> >     set of
> >     > tags they use which we might look to for inspiration?
> >     +1
> >     I like OpenStack tags :
> >
> >     Closes-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Closes-Bug' if the commit is intended to
> >     fully fix and close the bug being referenced.
> >     Partial-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Partial-Bug' if the commit is only a
> >     partial fix and more work is needed.
> >     Related-Bug: #1234567 -- use 'Related-Bug' if the commit is merely
> >     related to the referenced bug.
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Including_external_references
>
> How would Partial-Bug and Related-Bug differ for our purposes? Wouldn't
> they do the same thing (i.e. add a comment to the bug)? Could we get
> away with two tags:
>
> Ping-Bug: 12345 -- Add a comment to bug 12345
> Bug (or Closes-Bug): 12345 -- Add a comment and mark it RESOLVED FIXED.

Just "Ping-Bug" and "Bug" works for me.


> > On a related note, Gerrit has stopped commenting when a new patchset is
> > uploaded referencing a bug (I assume because it wasn't super-useful and
> > was causing noise). It would still be useful though, I think, if it add
> > a comment for new changes (just not for new patchsets within each
> > change) if that is possible.
>
> I tried to modify the "patchset-created" rule to only add a comment for
> the first change. In at least one case subsequent revisions were
> spamming the bug with the same comment. It looks like the rule had a
> bug. It should be fixed now.

Thanks!

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe