190042 - improve wording of duplicate mark

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 298273

(Bugzilla :: Query/Bug List, defect)

Description

[John Levon]

When marking a bug as a dupe, you get :

"This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5705"

It should use "bug 5705" instead, for two reasons :

1) it encourages people to use the magic phrase "bug X"
2) the dupe link from the other end uses the "bug X" wording

Comment 1

[Vlad Dascalu]

<-- patch writer

Comment 2

[Vlad Dascalu]

Attachment: Ver 1

Comment 3

[Vlad Dascalu]

Comment on attachment 134272 [details] [diff] [review]
Ver 1

Talked with kiko on IRC and discussed about version 2.

Comment 4

[Christian Reis]

Comment on attachment 134272 [details] [diff] [review]
Ver 1

Vlad, you know I love you, but this patch doesn't wrap lines, and it doesn't
use the special keywords in place of "bug".

Comment 5

[Vlad Dascalu]

Currently the "bug" word is not replaced with its defined special keyword when
generating duplicates messages as comments.

It would be pretty tricky to implement this, because it would break the
checksetup.pl conversion, and besides it's usually done at the Template-level,
not at the .cgi level.

Kiko: would you consider version 2 of the patch only with the lines warped, and
I'll file a new bug about replacing "bug" with the special keywork in duplicates
messages?

Comment 6

[Christian Reis]

Don't warp anything else today, it's been bad enough as it is.

Wrapping the lines is advisable, in any case, and I'm okay with a additional bug
being opened, *if* it hasn't been reported yet, which it might.

Comment 7

[Vlad Dascalu]

I couldn't find such a bug so I opened an unconfirmed one (bug 223880).

Comment 8

[Vlad Dascalu]

Attachment: Ver 2

Comment 9

[Vlad Dascalu]

Comment on attachment 134280 [details] [diff] [review]
Ver 2

Forgot to escape a space.

Comment 10

[Vlad Dascalu]

Attachment: Ver 3

Comment 11

[Christian Reis]

Comment on attachment 134283 [details] [diff] [review]
Ver 3

You need to change globals.pl:quoteURLs() to parse the new format too.

(Or did you think the linkification was magic? :-)

Note that you could actually remove all the duplicate marker code that's there
*if* you changed all the comments via checksetup.pl to use the new format. I'm
not suggesting that, but I'm not against it either <wink>.

Comment 12

[Christian Reis]

Hmmm, I see now that I'm not exactly right (it figures, right after submitting)
about you *needing* to change quoteURLs(), since GetBugLink would do it for us
-- it would be a welcome cleanup, though. What do you think?

Comment 13

[Bradley Baetz (:bbaetz)]

Comment on attachment 134283 [details] [diff] [review]
Ver 3

The checksetup changes aren't needed, since they can only be operating on
historical text.

you need to keep teh quoteUrls stuff in (although add a comment), unless you go
changing all existing entries in the database.

However, you also need to deal with that param for 'what we call a bug', and
hack that into quoteUrls....

Comment 14

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is a hassle, in terms of maintaining backwards compatibility for the old
format. Is the gain really worth it? I'm not convinced...

Gerv

Comment 15

[Frédéric Buclin]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 298273 ***