Re: Parsing mail to Bugzilla

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 05:04  PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 04:55:13PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 04:23  PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Dan" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org> writes:
> > >
> > > Dan> Number is unique in bugzilla.
> > > Dan> It ignores component when parsing.
> > >
> > > I think it would make sense to loosen the allowed formats for
> > > mentioning a bug in a commit message.
> >
> > My current log_accum (and bugzilla followup handler, though without 
> > the
> > last little bit since it has no log message to deal with in a subject)
> > regex looks like:
> > m/(?:Bug|PR)(?:\s*)(?:[a-z]+\/)?([\d]+).*/si
> >
> > IE it can handle Bug|PR <any amount of space> <optional word
> > prefix+/><number><rest of log message>, case insensitively.
> >
> >
> > The only thing it verifies is that the bug id matches the product
> > passed to log_accum IE that bug <number> is really for product
> > <whatever was passed on the command line>.
> > This was done so that if other projects want to use bugzilla, their
> > log_accum won't pick up non-project bugs accidently in commit 
> > messages.
> >
> > Though this might make sense anyway, thinking more about it (this 
> > would
> > mean that if gdb switched to bugzilla, and a gdb commit mentioned a 
> > gcc
> > bug, or a gcc commit mentioned a gdb bug, the bug would get a comment
> > appended about the commit).
>
> Bug ID is unique across products in Bugzilla isn't it?
Yes
>   So wouldn't
> anything with a separate GNATS database have to have a separate
> Bugzilla setup (or accept bugs to be renumbered)?

Yes.
--Dan