I'm not against creating bugs initially with such a title to make visual search easier. However I think that re-titling existing bugs is not needed, as at leads to spam. Mike Scherbakov #mihgen On Jul 23, 2014 4:24 AM, "Dmitry Borodaenko" <dborodaenko at mirantis.com> wrote: > +1 > > To provide some more context, we discussed this in the team meeting last > week: > > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/fuel/2014/fuel.2014-07-17-16.00.log.html#l-107 > > and agreed to stop doing it until further discussion, or at all. > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com> wrote: > > There has been an increased occurrence of using [tag] in the title > instead > > of adding tag to the tags section of the LP bugs for Fuel. > > > > As we discussed in the Fuel meeting last Thursday, We should stop doing > this > > as it causes several issues > > * It spams e-mail. > > * It breaks threading that your mail client may perform as it changes the > > subject. > > * They aren't searchable as easily as tags > > * They are going to look even more ugly when more tags are added or > removed > > from the bug. > > > > -- > > Andrew > > Mirantis > > Ceph community > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > Dmitry Borodaenko > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140723/9299e4a3/attachment.html>