On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> > On 2/7/06, lundblad@tigris.org <lundblad@tigris.org> wrote:
> > > @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@
> > > (svn_ra_open2, svn_ra_get_ra_library): continue instead of break if we
> > > don't load the first scheme handler successfully.
> > >
> > > -Reviewed by: lundblad
> > > +Review by: lundblad
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > The template we've used is derived from the CVS one which used the
> > past tense which is grammatically correct and also indicates the
> > review was done *prior* to commit. Therefore, I think it should be
> > 'reviewed by', not 'review by'. -- justin
> >
> IN hacking we have revieew by:, which is used nearly everywhere (except a
> few places that I fixed). No big deal at all, but since this is for
> parsing by scripts... And I don't mind either way if others want to
> change this; I think it was Karl who introduced "Review by:".
I wouldn't mind both being supported. Peter's nitpick is important
because the tools/dev/contribulyze.py script that Karl wrote depends
upon an exact match:
field_re = re.compile('^(Patch|Review|Suggested|Found) by:\s+(.*)')
I constantly find myself writing "Reviewed", then having to trim off
the last two characters...
--
Daniel Rall
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Thu Feb 9 03:00:39 2006