Re: [patch] gdb.c++/local.exp: add pr numbers

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Sat, 2002-04-13 at 18:06, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Andrew Cagney writes:
> > Suggest just ``(gdb/482)''.  It appears GCC really is switching to 
> > Bugzilla so ``gnats'' may one day not apply.
> 
> I thought about that.  When we switch to Bugzilla, is the bug still
> going to be #482? 
Yes.
Bugzilla bug ids for gnats bugs will be the same as they were for gnats.

> I like "gnats:gdb/482" because it identifies the bug
> reporting system that actually contains the bug.


> 
> I don't know if there's a standard way of citing bug reports ...
> do you want to promulgate one?

Um, if you simply write something fitting the regex bug(\s|%\#)*(\d+) ,
bugzilla will make it link to the bug in question.

If you want to reference a comment in the same bug, simply writing
something fitting comment(\s|%\#)*(\d+) will link to that comment

And combining the two, with an optional comma 
     bug(\s|%\#)*(\d+),?\s*comment\s*(\s|%\#)(\d+)     
will link to to a specific comment in a specific bug.

This is the basic standard for citing bug reports (Also FYI: There is no
official standard way for citing them in "real" documents, other than
using the proper citation form for their URL's or something.)

I'm not going to modify the bugzilla source (to recognize any other
citation forms, as this highlighting is done in a routine used all over
the place (and thus, it's harder to verify a given regex does what you
expect in all cases), and I am specifically trying to avoid making any
changes to the perl source that can be avoided (the templates are
expected to be changed).

> 
> Michael C