Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/4: Announcing new packages before uploading them
Johnie Ingram <johnie@netgod.net> writes:
> I prefer the current usage of #(\d+) -- a bug that is referenced but
> not to be closed can bet called just \d+, or Bug \d+, and the script
> will ignore it just as "release" currently does.
Not a good idea. What if I need to say:
* Partial fix for this scheme implementation's problem handling
single element vectors like #(4).
Obviously, If I know about the problem I could probably cludge around
this, but I think we need a more explicit way to indicate the intended
closures if we're going to do this at all. The "closes=" or the
X-Debian-closes: header ideas seem fine. We certainly don't want
accidental bug closures...
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
Reply to: