On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 11:51 Senthil Kumaran <sent...@uthcode.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If people don't like that idea the appending works for me if it isn't > >> difficult for Senthil. > > > > but I'd still prefer this to not having the modified version at all. > > It's not difficult and I am open to these suggestions. I hope we can > settle upon something that will serve us well in utility value. > > If many folks are still apprehensive, not changing is fine with me. > It's will be a slight inconvenience with historical commit messages. > OK, executive decision: let's test a rewrite but only for things that match the regex at the beginning of the commit message (using Senthil's long list of possible formats so we get "bpo-NNNN" and not "Issue bpo-NNNN"). That won't have any false-positives and still gets us consistent issue naming for the whole repo (at least in the commit summary line, but that will also act as a scope to the commit that any ambiguous "#NNNN" numbers apply to bpo). If this test doesn't lead to people being happy we will abandon the idea of any history rewriting for tomorrow.
_______________________________________________ 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
