I definitely agree! That's one of the features I love about Phabricator Maniphest: you can link commits, pull requests (Differentials, on that platform), and issues together in any fashion.
I think part of this is a matter of training developer habits. Since the commit would typically go through a PR, the lack of a closed task could actually be something a reviewer could catch. But, since what's done is done, the developer would still need to manually associate the task with the commit.
Perhaps it would be useful to have some sort of optional notation: you could say -1 for the commit number, to say "back one".
I love the idea to link issue (and fixes) to a git commit. This is something we don't find in tracker.
I don't use git bisect but maybe another field to specify where the issue started can be useful too.
I definitely agree! That's one of the features I love about Phabricator Maniphest: you can link commits, pull requests (Differentials, on that platform), and issues together in any fashion.
I think part of this is a matter of training developer habits. Since the commit would typically go through a PR, the lack of a closed task could actually be something a reviewer could catch. But, since what's done is done, the developer would still need to manually associate the task with the commit.
Perhaps it would be useful to have some sort of optional notation: you could say
-1for the commit number, to say "back one".I think consistency with git would be essential, so HEAD1 and HEAD~1 and short/partial hash