[ClusterLabs Developers] Reference to private bugzillas in commit messages

[Adam Spiers]

Jan Pokorný <jpokorny at redhat.com> wrote: 
>On 09/01/18 09:56 -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote: 
>>The acronyms, like any other, you just have to pick up over time with 
>>experience. I'll add the ones I know to the Pacemaker Development 
>>document, which are: 
>>
>>   LFBZ - old Linux Foundation bugzilla for the Linux-HA project - https://developerbugs.linuxfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>
>I fail to find a single reference to this, as opposed to mere "LF" in 
>the repo log. 
>
>>   CLBZ - ClusterLabs bugzilla - https://bugs.clusterlabs.org/
>
>Similarly, these were historically referred often just as 
>"cl#<ticket no>" 
>
>>   RHBZ - Red Hat bugzilla - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
>>
>>   BSC - SuSE bugzilla - https://bugzilla.suse.com/index.cgi
>
>There are also "bnc" entries in the repo log that, I grok, stands for 
>bugzilla.novell.com. 

Correct.

Here are the abbreviations currently used within openSUSE and SUSE: 

    https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Patches_guidelines#Current_set_of_abbreviations

Also see this issue (even if you aren't involved with openSUSE) where 
I go into depth on considerations relating to the use of these 
shorthand references: 

    https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-service-tar_scm/issues/207

and also this ancient 2013 thread which highlights that a "foo#1234" 
format is too simplistic for references to sites like GitHub: 

    https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2013-06/msg00032.html

My personal take is that URLs were designed by very clever people for 
exactly this hyperlinking purpose, have been proven over multiple 
decades, and are universally understood by both humans and all kinds 
of software.  So why on earth reinvent the wheel just for this 
microscopic use case?  To save a few bytes?