Just a reminder that I'l make a decision about this tomorrow so Senthil has a day to test a conversion with the proposal below. So if you like what Senthil is proposing then please say so, else you can also say you don't want any history rewriting.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 10:09 Senthil Kumaran <sent...@uthcode.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2017 3:52 AM, "Martin Panter" <vadmium...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Count me as a weak -0.5 or so for altering commit messages. I think it > > is easy enough to understand that historical messages refer to a > > particular bug tracker, and false positives can be annoying, > > distracting, make you wonder about the sanity of the person who > > originally made the commit, etc. > > > > Thanks for the valuable feedback, Martin and Ezio. > > > If the range check is implemented, this won't match. If there are low > > numbered SF issues and the SF prefix is commonly used, it could be added > to > > > As you both pointed out and as I browse through the commits at > https://github.com/orsenthil/cpython-migration-test/commits/master > after the #NNNN to bpo-NNNN > > _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement. > > 1) Rename #NNNN, Issue #NNNN, issue #NNNN, IssueNNNN, issueNNNN to bpo-NNNN > 2) Looking for numbers 1000 and above which don't start with SF, is > okay with me as it can reduce the false positives. > > The change I did to hg-git was this: > > https://bitbucket.org/orsenthil/hg-git/commits/75408e7efdbc73a4da435080f23fb0f1194e23b6 > > And that other rules that we are discussing can be included. > > > I am +1 to change if we do it consistently for all different > {IssueNNNN, issueNNNN, Issue #NNNN, issue #NNNN, #NNNN, SF #NNNN} > usage. > As Nick pointed out earlier in this thread, the positive aspect of > rewriting includes, showing an example for how new commit messages are > to be written. > > If we don't want to span it across all issue formats, but restrict it > only to #NNNN, then I am -1. As Martin points out, it looks half done > to me. > > Also, other feedback from Martin was to not have hg branch annotation. > E.g: https://github.com/orsenthil/cpython-migration-test/commit/851c48a > > That can be removed. I am unable to decide on the merits/de-merits. > hg-git tool seems to be doing that commit extra messages by default. > The annotation gives information that commit was originally done in > that particular hg branch. > > Thank you, > Senthil > _______________________________________________ > core-workflow mailing list > core-workflow@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow > This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: > https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct >
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
