Closed kwankyu closed 1 year ago
Of course, you can control the order. I am not sure if "cc:" should be between "keywords" and "author".
I think "Depends" should be the very first item because it has a different format that makes it seems more like part of the text.
The rest of the order looks good to me. In particular, having "Author" precede "Reviewer" is, of course, a great improvement.
Also Author - Branch/Commit - Reviewer would make sense to me; but I don't have a clear preference on that
With some more fields:
order = ['depends', 'upstream', 'cc:', 'component', 'keywords', 'assignee', 'author', 'branch', 'commit', 'reviewer', 'merged']
Done.
While I am at it:
why names in CC are not separated by commas?
I saw branch @ commit
format. Is this an official format?
I say that since we may use branch / commit
format for Branch/Commit
field.
why names in CC are not separated by commas?
Because one wouldn't use commas in a list of at-mentions.
OK if that's a convention.
I saw
branch @ commit
format. Is this an official format?
It's not syntax. It is intended to express that we are sitting on the branch "at" this commit.
I think "Depends" should be the very first item because it has a different format that makes it seems more like part of the text.
At the same time, it is separated from the text by 2 spaces, and has least significant information, which is perhaps why it is placed at the last line in trac. We may regard it as a third block among 4 blocks (the last one is "Issue created by ...")
I don't know if it matters, but to me the order ['depends', 'upstream', 'cc:', 'component', 'keywords', 'assignee', 'author', 'branch', 'commit', 'reviewer', 'merged']
makes sense "chronologically".
I saw
branch @ commit
format. Is this an official format?It's not syntax. It is intended to expresses that we are sitting on the branch "at" this commit.
If it's not an official form in git culture, I doubt if people will get the intention easily (commit @ branch
makes more sense to me...) Anyway OK with me.
I don't know if it matters, but to me the order
['depends', 'upstream', 'cc:', 'component', 'keywords', 'assignee', 'author', 'branch', 'commit', 'reviewer', 'merged']
makes sense "chronologically".
I have no more argument. I respect your judgment :-)
Thank you!
Sort description items in this
order = ['cc:', 'component', 'keywords', 'author', 'reviewer', 'branch', 'commit', 'depends']
Other items, if any, follow in alphabetical order.