| 1 |
On 6 March 2015 at 09:03, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I've settled on using a colon i.e. "jer format." If the bug references a |
| 4 |
> specific version (range), then I use =, >=, etc. appropriately. In the |
| 5 |
> case of stabilization bugs, I'd throw in the "=". |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I was under the impression adding "=" was just useless churn, because if a |
| 9 |
version is specified, one can assume =. Its only when you have a range of |
| 10 |
versions do you need anything else. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Which is why my vote is with a or b, I don't care which. Whitespace |
| 13 |
delimiting after package token is sufficient usually. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But sometimes I feel the grammatical flow is "weird" if there's no |
| 16 |
punctuation, or weird if there is. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
"horse stablisation" vs "horse: stabilization" # the latter works better |
| 19 |
than the former grammatically |
| 20 |
"horse fails to jump gate" vs "horse: fails to jump gate" # the former is |
| 21 |
sufficient. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Kent |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
*KENTNL* - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives