For reference, there are two basic reasons for not referring to bugzilla when sending patches, in the commit log or otherwise. The first one is that patches should stand on their own. If the bug contains important information that's relevant to the patch, that should be included directly in the commit log. If it doesn't, well, the reference it just redundant. The other reason is that it's not unlikely that the commit log will outlive bugzilla. I.e., you can't depend on bugzilla always being there. That's essentially the same reason as for not including hyperlinks in comments, although at least the source code can easily be changed, while for the commit log that would be a serious pain.
I am confused. Following this list only, I so far did not notice someone saying "don't tell the bug number" (ok, might be my fault), but a few times asking the question "does this patch fix an actual" bug. Also, SubmittingPatches says:
===
... Include a description ... If you're working on a bug in bugzilla, mention the bug number, and consider filing a bug if none exists.
===
Maybe this is a misunderstanding of terminology? 'commit log' is for me the combination of the single-line 'header' plus the 'description', which can be multiple paragraphs. (and is usually dropped when patches are imported to the official repo. Why is that BTW?) I would agree, that the bug number should not be in the header, but having it as additional information besides the regular description should not really hurt?
Kind regards,
Wolfram