Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/4: Announcing new packages before uploading them

[Fabrizio Polacco <fpolacco@icenet.fi>]

Rob Browning wrote:
>  I happen to think
> that the changelog closes= field is the best thing suggested so far.
> 

Right, and I agree.
While we are discussing the rexpr to be used, I'd ask to please consider
using:
	/close[s]? \s* = \s* (?:bug)? \s* \# (\d+)/ix

without forcing use of upper or lowercase, but forcing use of = and #nnn
Particularly the = won't be normally used between the verb close and a
number, so it's a sintax enough different from normal speaking without
being too much astruse.

(follows explanation for the few who don't think perl :-)

So the test 
perl -000ne \
'print $1,"\n" while s/close[s]? \s* = \s* (?:bug)? \s* \# (\d+)//ix'

Matches:
	close=#1234   
	close =
	   #97531
	Closes = Bug#5678 and also close=#8765
	CLOSE= BUG #9090
but not:
	I can't close bug#8642
	close only part of #1480
	close=# 246
(if we want to match also the last one, use \s*  after \# )

(it's important to match command splitted between lines, because editors
often do it: therefore the -000 equivalent to setting $/ and the while
instead of an if.)


Just my 2 penniä.

Thank you,
Fabrizio
-- 
| fpolacco@icenet.fi    fpolacco@debian.org    fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]