From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16909 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2012 16:17:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 16887 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Feb 2012 16:17:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:17:25 +0000 From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug web/52228] Bugzilla: Missing link for "PR...." Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:17:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: web X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: LpSolit at netscape dot net X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg01326.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52228 Tobias Burnus changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus 2012-02-13 16:17:21 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > My regexp explicitly forbirds / right before PR.... but I cannot remember why: > qr/(? I will drop this restriction, but will bring it back if it appears there was a > good reason to do so. :) Best would be a pattern, which only prohibits "http(s):"[nonwhitespace]/PR". (In reply to comment #7) > Ah, right! That was the reason I explicitly excluded / right before PR. So I > guess the problem described in comment 0 is minor enough to let it unfixed. Any > objection? For the issue of comment 0, allowing "[0-9]/PR" should probably be safe. However, one also finds: "middle-end/PR1234" (for those which mistype "PR middle-end/1234"). Regarding comment 0, how about such a pattern: qr/(?