Jan, it looks like your "no bug" patch[1] ended up getting associated with this bug[2], which is why it appeared here and landed with this bug ID in its commit message. This probably mentioned because the extended commit message mentioned this bug number, and it's probably worth considering that auto-linkage to be a bug in some part of the process. Would you mind filing that as a bug, with a description of whatever process you used to generate your "no bug" phabricator page? It'd probably go under... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Conduit&component=Review%20Wrapper ...if you used `moz-phab`, or under... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Conduit&component=Phabricator ...if not. [1] https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D20950 [2] It has "Bugzilla Bug ID 1501665" in a header near the top of the page, even though the bug number isn't mentioned in the title.
Bug 1501665 Comment 67 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Jan, it looks like your "no bug" patch[1] ended up getting associated with this bug[2], which is why it appeared here and landed with this bug ID in its commit message. This probably happened because the extended commit message mentioned this bug number, and it's probably worth considering that auto-linkage to be a bug in some part of the process. Would you mind filing that as a bug, with a description of whatever process you used to generate your "no bug" phabricator page? It'd probably go under... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Conduit&component=Review%20Wrapper ...if you used `moz-phab`, or under... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Conduit&component=Phabricator ...if not. [1] https://phabricator.services.mozilla.com/D20950 [2] It has "Bugzilla Bug ID 1501665" in a header near the top of the page, even though the bug number isn't mentioned in the title.