| Summary: | Parse and link (repository) commit references in issue comments | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Services | Reporter: | Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe> |
| Component: | Bug Tracker | Assignee: | Marcus von Appen <mva> |
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
| Severity: | Affects Many People | CC: | bugmeister, koobs |
| Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | feature, needs-qa |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | Any | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
|
Description
Alexey Dokuchaev
2014-06-12 02:56:16 UTC
In contrast to SVN, git commit hashes are unique, so a commit hash should not exist for two different repositories or projects. Adding a parser for referencing SVN is not that hard. The problem is how to avoid wrong assumptions. a) "Check out r14775 from project foo: http://svn.awesomefoo.meh/..." -> we do not want a link pointing to our repos. b) reference base, doc, ports, etc. This means a non-intuitive aproach. What I could imagine, would be something like Phabric does: rP12345 -> ports revision rS12345 -> src/base revision rD12345 -> doc revision Or, to be similar to bug XXXXX and comment XX syntax: ports 123456 src 123456 doc 123456 I'd favour the latter, since it's more intuitive for a bugzilla user. Extension is created, but not rolled out yet: https://github.com/freebsd/bugzilla/commit/c6a249e5e38fe6144cc5eec0cc312266f5b861d0 Supported repos would be: base, ports, doc SVN links are now available. Supported link types are: ports <number> base <number> doc <number> reviews D<number> Have been using it for a short while, seems to work fine, thanks! I'm a bit worried about overly simple matching scheme (e.g. I've personally would probably require explicit "r" prefix for revision and/or "SVN/repo" instead of just "repo"), but so far it did not clash with my usage of English. |