On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Michael Gilbert wrote: >> That's exactly what I said and why I offered proposed the secondary >> more ideal solution, which would be to not close bugs that are >> assigned to different packages than the upload itself. Is there a >> reason not to do that? > > There are some bugs (like wnpp bugs) which are closed by an upload in > a different package, for example. It seems reasonable to send out a > warning, but I don't want to disallow it.
Would a disallow by default but a whitelist things like wnpp also add too much complexity? >> Point being that it's rather easy to forget ordering relevance, and >> it's not very intuitive anyway. Would it be possible to define >> something akin to aritmetic operator ordering (i.e. addition follows >> multiplication). > > Each control line operates in isolation; changing that would require a > huge redesign of how control works, and would also make it much more > brittle. Wouldn't it simply be a matter of adding a first pass that rewrites the message with lines in the correct order? Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
