On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 February 2017 at 18:42, Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >>> +1: Nick, Senthil, Chris >>> +0: ... >>> -0: Martin, Brett >>> -1: Naoki, Berker >> >> Since we don't get clickable links any way about it, -1 on rewriting >> commit messages. Too easy to accidentally mess things up for no real >> benefit. > > Rewriting the history means we *do* get clickable links for anyone > that wants them, as a distinctive string like "bpo-12345" is amenable > to automated conversion into a hyperlink via a client side script in > GreaseMonkey or similar. > > You can't readily do that with "#12345" or even "Issue #12345" because > they're too generic.
I don't see how we can say they're too generic for a GreaseMonkey script to match, but not for rewriting history. An option that I would be less against would be to, instead of rewriting the actual message, tack '\n\n[bpo-12345]' onto the end of the message. At least that way any misfires would be non-destructive. -- Zach _______________________________________________ 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
