Hide Forgot
To make it harder to accidentally insert a wrong bug cross-reference in the comment, I suggest: - make JS scan for "active" bug references (complete URLs or "bug XYZ"), make these references resolved on-the-fly into component + summary (or anything convenient for quick orientation) and list such resolved references the below comment box - optionally, add buttons for each such bug reference listed for "add to Depends On/Blocks/See Also" that would make so dynamically as well That would significantly limit the possibility of making a wrong cross-reference to another bug, especially when considering that usually such a reference is done by copy paste from a different tab and typical bugzilla user, I guess, has more such tabs opened at the same time.
FYI Bugzilla 5 has a preview tab, including linkifying links with the pop-up text, so people who like to be diligent can swap from the comment tab to the preview tab and hover over links.
re [comment 5]: I don't see this as an optimal solution (nor necessary unless some kind of markup language is going to be introduced, anyway). Current quotation pseudo-markup does not justify it, IMHO. See the second point, having the cross references dynamically offered to be added as Depends On/Blocks/See Also (if not already) would be beneficial to support building such kind of semantic/machine-processable references (that in turn makes dependencies etc. clearer).
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #3) > re [comment 5]: > I don't see this as an optimal solution (nor necessary unless > some kind of markup language is going to be introduced, anyway). > Current quotation pseudo-markup does not justify it, IMHO. It's upstream functionality so it costs us nothing, and BZ-6 will support markdown input. > See the second point, having the cross references dynamically offered > to be added as Depends On/Blocks/See Also (if not already) would be > beneficial to support building such kind of semantic/machine-processable > references (that in turn makes dependencies etc. clearer). I think this bug would need a lot of votes before the PO will approve the amount of time it would take to do this given other priorities being what they are.
We do not believe this features usefulness outweighs it's costs given the limited resource the project has.