>>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>>> The paragraph should be of format ``Removal on ${DATE}. ${BUGS-LIST}``,
>>> where
>>> the date is RFC-3339 full-date format, meaning ``YYYY-MM-DD``, and the bugs
>>> list is of the `bugs list`_ format. The listed bugs should include the
>>> last-rite bug opened, and potentially more relevant bugs which weren't
>>> listed
>>> in the explanation paragraphs.
>>
>> Does this mean that only the first of the following entries would be
>> valid?
>>
>> # Removal on 2023-11-13. Bugs #678901, #890123
>> # Removal on 2023-11-13, bugs #678901, #890123.
>> # Removal on 2023-11-13. Bugs #678901 #890123
>>
>> IMHO that would be too restrictive. Punctuation shouldn't be significant
>> there. (This doesn't preclude _recommending_ one of the variants.)
> Your current interpretation was correct. My main goal is to define a
> "precise" format, so it easy to parse for render of mask (i.e. soko). I
> also think we have nothing to gain from allowing "," instead of "."
> after removal date, but not that I care. Same for bugs-list, I'm fine
> with making the "," optional, but I want us to define a "precise regex"
> so we have consistent format for important bits of mask message. Does
> this seem good enough for you?
> BUGS-LIST ::= [Bb]ugs? #\d+(,? +#\d+)*
Make this one either "[Bb]ugs? #\d+(,? #\d+)*" (which I'd prefer)
or "[Bb]ugs? +#\d+(,? +#\d+)*". That is, same number of spaces in both
locations.
> LAST-RITE ::= Removal on {DATE}[.,]? +{BUGS-LIST}.?
Looks good. Adding " *" at the end won't harm, in case someone will
leave spurious whitespace at the end of the line.
Ulrich
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
