On 2011-11-20 21:39, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Niels Thykier <[email protected]>, 2011-11-19, 09:04: >> It breaks testset/foo++ which has some weird uploaders. Basically it >> appears to read all of >> >> Yama@gotchi, Josip, I am afraid of spam and think this helps >> <no_spam_please AT debian.org> >> >> as a single uploader. I strongly suspect this will break our >> "uploader has no email"-check (with the exception of said uploader >> being the last uploader). It probably also complicates some of our >> other "broken uploader" checks. > > For the record: I attached diff of test output. > > To be honest, this test is quite contrived and I don't believe that > these kind of mistakes in Uploaders happen often enough to care about > them in lintian. >
Hey, As mentioned over IRC, one of my issues with this patch is that appears to break uploader-address-missing and uploader-name-missing (possible exception being the "last uploader"[1]). If we go with the patch I think we should revisit or remove these two tags. I think the hardest case is that "missing address" case because the ">\K\s*,"-split makes it imposible to distinguish "Person1, Person2 <email>" from "Person, 1 <email>" without heuristics. For the missing-name thing - I suspect that a name containing @ is usually always a mistake. So... [email protected], Name <[email protected]>, Some Person <[email protected]> In this case, the new regex would split into two: 1: [email protected], Name <[email protected]> 2: Some Person <[email protected]> Using a regex like "\@\S+\K\s*,\s*" we can "re-split" $1 and check both parts. Anyone have any ideas/suggestions or preferences on how to solve this? ~Niels [1] Notice that fields-uploaders passes the test, while foo++ fails despite both have an "email-less" uploader. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
