> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>> 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.
> OK, would be hard to define it correctly in the BNF, but will just use
> {n} syntax to
On 13/10/2023 21.42, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
>> 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.
OK, would be hard to define it correctly in the
> 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 ``-MM-DD``, and the bugs
>>> list is of the `bugs list`_ format. The listed bugs should include the
>>>
On 13/10/2023 19.06, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>
>> Comments Block
>> --
>
>> The comments block consists of 2 mandatory parts (`author line`_ and
>> `explanation`_) and one optional part (`last-rite epilogue`_). A blank line
>> to
>>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> Comments Block
> --
> The comments block consists of 2 mandatory parts (`author line`_ and
> `explanation`_) and one optional part (`last-rite epilogue`_). A blank line to
> separate the parts is optional. Trailing whitespace should
