> On May 2, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2 May 2017 at 20:50, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: >> It’s generally only a two step process if there isn’t an existing issue >> you’re fixing. If you’re fixing an issue you can/should just use the issue’s >> number instead of the PRs number. We can make it possible to do like >> <uuid>.feature and such too though if we think the random PR without an >> issue case is big enough to warrant a special case. > > Hmm, maybe. I tend to do all changes as PRs, not all of which come > from an issue. But it's also true that it's not immediately obvious > (to me) from the docs that it's OK to use the issue number rather than > the PR number. I could try rewording the docs to that effect, but to > do so will need the 2-step process as there's no issue for this :-)
Rewording the docs would be fine, and I think it would be a trivial fix since it’s just messing with development docs. > > This originally came up for me because the discussion on > https://github.com/pypa/pip/pull/4461 had got quite messy - I felt > that it might be easier for me to offer to rework the OP's PR rather > than keep asking for corrections - but having to ass the NEWS entry > made me doing that more complex than I'd initially thought. NEWS > management was making a pretty trivial change in the wording of an > error into a bit of a nightmare, both for me and for the OP. I was > *really * tempted to say drop the NEWS and I'll mark the change > trivial - but that seemed wrong, given that the OP had taken the time > to write a NEWS item. > > I don't really have a good answer here. But this is my first > experience with the new NEWS process - and it doesn't seem like an > improvement over the old one, I'm afraid :-( > > Would it be better if you could just name it no-issue-<random stuff>.<ext> in that case? — Donald Stufft
