PW#5-12: New upload procedure
Christian Schwarz:
> * Changed `closes' and `closed' term into `fixes'
>
> (This has been suggested by a few people. Please tell me if `closes'
> would still be preferred.)
I would prefer `close', `closes' OR `closed' (but obviously only one
of them). This is the term used by the bug system. (Besides - we're
always running out of words for things and we might want to use `fix'
for something else ...)
> * Relaxed syntax of pattern which detects `fixes' lines: spaces are
> allowed in some places, pattern is case-insensitive, "bug" can be
> omitted
I disagree most strongly. Use of a strict pattern is not just to
avoid accidents; it also promotes careful behaviour.
My experience as a USENET votetaker was that people are _worse_ at
obeying a liberal syntax, because the boundaries are not clear. The
syntax should be reasonably simple, but well-defined.
I propose the syntax
close:(bug)?\#\d+(,(bug)?\#\d+)> *
Using the imperative `close' seems closer to the intent.
Later, Guy says:
> Yes, that seems to be the right thing to do, and dpkg-genchanges
> already has the hooks to do it! What a forward-thinking person Ian
> is. Just add something like this to your control file:
>
> XC-Comment: As always, the files are available from my home page at
> <http://....>
> .
> Note that this upload does "rm -rf /" in the preinst.
> ...
I suggest not using just the term `Comment' here - we might want it
for something else. How about XC-Announcement ? XC-Upload-Comment ?
We can change dpkg-genchanges in due course to know about an
Announcement or Upload-Comment field, so we don't need XC-
Ian.
Reply to: