2.17.1 status report - 1st draft

[Gervase Markham]

> But a more standard checkin message format would be nice, too.
> 
> Which... really consists of Bug XXXXX - description, <patch by ...> r=
> 
> Note the capital B and the r=.
> 
> I'm looking in your general direction, Myk. ;-)

I use:

Bug XXXXX - <summary>. [optional descriptive extra text, including any 
other bugs fixed by this checkin.] Patch by <nick>; <review details>

where <review details> can be something like:
r,a=justdave.
or
r=bbaetz, caillon, a=justdave.
or
2xr=myk.

So JP's script would cut it off at "Patch by". The description and 
optional text is full-stop-terminated, and the patch author is separated 
from the review details by a semicolon.

Obviously, a totally prescriptive format is wrong because there are some 
patches that just won't fit it. But I think a default standard would be 
sensible.

Gerv