Re: [PEAR-QA] Package Abstracts

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 21:41, Justin Patrin wrote:
> I would rather Bug #123 and Bug:123 be supported. Changing #123 to a
> bug link is just too prone to error. I could easily see someone saying
> "line #123".

Agreed actually, maybe I was thinking this from too much of a
"changelog" perspective where people usually just say "Bugs #333, #444
and #445 fixed, were all typos" or something in that direction.

So well okey ditch my idea of only #343 into a link :-)


--
Regards
Helgi