ambiguity in the guidelines

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 23:43 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 7/5/06, seth vidal <skvidal at linux.duke.edu> wrote:
> > Do you seriously think relying on regexes for parsing out data is safe
> > and reliable for human-inputted strings w/o confirmation?
> 
> About as safe as anything rpmlint detects now.  But the discussion is
> moot because there is no reason to actually parse the string right
> now.  If you had some killer feature that required parsing of the
> change log entries then it would be worth discussing.

so correctness is not a feature in and of itself?

sheesh.

Let's be clear about what's going on here:
1. I do not think it is an appropriate to overload the field
2. I do not wish to take part in that particular dirtiness
3. until today no one has questioned the desire for correctness on my
part
4. I'm not asking anyone else to do what I'm doing - I'm just trying to
do what I think is most correct and appropriate given the technology
available.


that's it!
-sv