When a bug on which another bug depends changes state, users on the dependant bug get email about it. The email contains a link to the dependant bug but does not contain a link to the depending bug. It should.

This patch adds a link to the depending bug and clarifies the message explaining what has happened. This fix should also be incorporated into the fix for bug 65477 via linkification of the "bug xxx" text rather than a separate link underneath that text.

reassigning to patch author

Comment on attachment 60281 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1: adds link and clarifies explanatory text You changed from "This bug" to "Bug $id". Was that intentional? I don't think one is better over teh other, so r=bbaetz. Second reviewer should test this, since I can't ATM.

>You changed from "This bug" to "Bug $id". Was that intentional? Yes. I have often found the phrase "This bug" to be confusing in emails about depending bug state changes because the bug to which the pronoun "this" refers is not explicitly named in the body of the message. Its bug number and summary appears in the subject line, and a link to the bug appears in the body, but these references have been insufficient to enable me to understand the pronoun's referent. Explicitly naming the bug instead of using the pronoun makes things clearer. I can change the wording back and file a new bug on it if there is controversy over the wording, but otherwise the change is so small that we might as well roll them together.

Comment on attachment 60281 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1: adds link and clarifies explanatory text >+ "\nBug $id depends on bug $bug, which changed state.\n\n" . >+ "$urlbase/show_bug.cgi?id=$bug\n\n" . >+ "Bug $bug Summary: $summary\n\n"; Shouldn't it just be a single \n instead of \n\n at the end of the first two lines? Also, why not put the URL as the 3rd line? This way you can read both informative lines and the link is neatly at the bottom?

>Shouldn't it just be a single \n instead of \n\n at the end of the first two >lines? Sure, why not. >Also, why not put the URL as the 3rd line? This way you can read both >informative lines >and the link is neatly at the bottom? Works for me. This patch contains these two formatting changes.

Comment on attachment 63974 [details] [diff] [review] patch v3: fixes the extra slash problem r=caillon

it's cheap, it's easy, let's get it in to 2.16!

Comment on attachment 63974 [details] [diff] [review] patch v3: fixes the extra slash problem Looks good to me... r=jake

Checking in processmail; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/processmail,v <-- processmail new revision: 1.74; previous revision: 1.73 done

*** Bug 146476 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***