Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez] Assignee
	Description • 23 years ago

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.

	Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez] Assignee
	Comment 1 • 23 years ago

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.

	Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez] Assignee
	Comment 2 • 23 years ago

reassigning to patch author

	Bradley Baetz (:bbaetz)
	Comment 3 • 23 years ago

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.

	Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez] Assignee
	Comment 4 • 23 years ago

>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.

	Christopher Aillon (sabbatical, not receiving bugmail)
	Comment 5 • 23 years ago

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?

	Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez] Assignee
	Comment 6 • 23 years ago

>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.

	Christopher Aillon (sabbatical, not receiving bugmail)
	Comment 9 • 23 years ago

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

r=caillon

	Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez] Assignee
	Comment 10 • 23 years ago

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

	Jacob Steenhagen
	Comment 11 • 23 years ago

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

Looks good to me...
r=jake

	Myk Melez [:myk] [@mykmelez] Assignee
	Comment 12 • 23 years ago

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

	Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]
	Comment 13 • 23 years ago

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