On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 14:03:26 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2023, Jonas Stein wrote: > > >> # Removal on 2023-10-21. Bug #667687, #667689. > > > We should use "after" instead of "on": > > > # Removal after T > > I wonder if we even need to specify the wording in such detail. For any > tools parsing the file, it might be enough to say that the line must > contain, in this order: > > - "Removal" (case insensitive?) as the first word, > - exactly one date in YYYY-MM-DD format, > - optionally, the word "bug" followed by one or more bug numbers. >
With the scheme above, the following would be valid (among other more
nonsensical looking things):
# Removal before YYYY-MM-DD. Bug #1, #2
IMO it definitely should require a word with similar meaning to "on" or
"after". How exactly that gets worded in the end, IDK. Maybe it'll end
up as "exactly one of 'on' or 'after'" or something like that.
- Oskari
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
