Re: Anyone recognise this fixed bug (subtext: where is the bug DB?)

Alan Burlison wrote:

> I think it should just be an incrementing id.  You can't really put a
> perl version it it anywhere because you don't know in advance if/when
> the patchid was integrated, and a perl version number is therfore
> misleading.  You can find the version the patch was raised against by
> looking at the associated bug, which will have the perl version in it.
<snip>
> Why not just a list of patchids in the message body?

Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
> Each change checked into the perforce repository has a change
> number which is what I assumed we were going to use. If you look
> at the Changes file in the distribution you'll see it gives the
> number for each change.

Any objections to using the changeid instead of a patchid?

Although it looks like we've had a number of different changeids in our time:
	NETaa14928
	Change 721
	[  3195] 
:-)

How does this sound: 

	To: change_<changid>_<ticketid>_[<ticketid>]*@bugs.perl.org

	To: change_<changid>@bugs.perl.org
	Subject: <ticketid> <ticketid>*

Either form would assign this changeid to all given bugs, and close them.

???

Ciao
Richard Foley
---
[email protected] | [email protected] | [email protected]
'Ciao' - shorter than 'Aufwiedersehen'