On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 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.
I am +1 to this rewrite. For the consistency it brings, I see more
value in doing vs not doing it.
I am not no
On 9 February 2017 at 06:55, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> 2) we rewrite: users will see bpo- on old commit messages and they
> will know that they are not links to GH issues/PRs, and they might
> know/guess that bpo refers to bugs.python.org. These will still be
> plain text and won't link to bpo (u
> issues/PRs, but they might not know what they refer to). Even if
> eventually we might have enough PRs that the numbers will start
> overlapping, there shouldn't be any wrong link (the link are not
> created retroactively, unless GH changes in the future).
Nice!
Now I'm -1 for both of rewriting
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> To summarize, are these alternatives correct?
yes, that is accurate.
___
core-workflow mailing list
core-workflow@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow
This list is gover
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 20:29 Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > Just a reminder that I'l make a decision about this tomorrow so Senthil
>> > has
>> > a day to test a conversion with the pro
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 20:29 Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > 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 plea
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Berker Peksağ wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> > _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement.
> >
> > 1) Rename #, Issue #, issue #, Issue, issue to bpo-
> > 2) Looking for numbers 1
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement.
>
> 1) Rename #, Issue #, issue #, Issue, issue to bpo-
> 2) Looking for numbers 1000 and above which don't start with SF, is
> okay with me as it c
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 wrot
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2017 3:52 AM, "Martin Panter" 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 a
On Feb 8, 2017 3:52 AM, "Martin Panter" 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
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.
On 7
On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Just to remind people, the migration is happening Friday, so we need to make
> a yay/nay on whether we are going to tweak the history as Senthil has tested
> very soon. So I'm putting a deadline of Wednesday night to vote on whether
> we should tw
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 at 02:32 Maciej Szulik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Senthil Kumaran
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> > It would be great if you could try something, Senthil.
>
> I did a sample migration of the repo with the change we discussed for
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> > It would be great if you could try something, Senthil.
>
> I did a sample migration of the repo with the change we discussed for
> rewrite # to bpo-
>
> The migrated test-repo is
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Maciej Szulik wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> It looks like people in general prefer "bpo-" (sorry, Ned and MAL).
>>
>> Maciej, can we update the requisite regexes so that bpo- is
>> acceptable in PR titles, PR commen
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ned Deily wrote:
> It would be great if you could try something, Senthil.
I did a sample migration of the repo with the change we discussed for
rewrite # to bpo-
The migrated test-repo is here:
https://github.com/orsenthil/cpython-migration-test
An exampl
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 16:25 Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 19:16, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 16:06 Ned Deily wrote:
> >> 2. What about Misc/NEWS entries? Are we going to continue to ask
> committers to use the old format (Issue #n) there? Note these are
> current
On 4 February 2017 at 02:44, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 17:32 Senthil Kumaran wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > And since we will be creating a new project there will be no
>> > pre-existing
>> > issues to accidentally link to when we push
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It looks like people in general prefer "bpo-" (sorry, Ned and MAL).
>
> Maciej, can we update the requisite regexes so that bpo- is acceptable
> in PR titles, PR comments, and commit messages?
>
>
Sorry, was out this weekend. Sure I'l
On 04.02.2017 00:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It looks like people in general prefer "bpo-" (sorry, Ned and MAL).
No worries.
--
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com
Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Feb 06 2017)
>>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:02:43PM -0800, Senthil Kumaran
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > That's a question for Senthil, but I would be a little worried about editing
> > the history as the match should be probably s/issue #(\d+)/bpo-\1/ and it
> > shows how easy
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 17:32 Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > And since we will be creating a new project there will be no pre-existing
> > issues to accidentally link to when we push the converted repo.
>
> That's a good news.. Thanks for testing t
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> And since we will be creating a new project there will be no pre-existing
> issues to accidentally link to when we push the converted repo.
That's a good news.. Thanks for testing this, Brett. This seems to
apply to both issues and pull reques
On Feb 3, 2017 4:35 PM, "Ned Deily" wrote:
It would be great if you could try something, Senthil. Other opinions?
I am definitely in for it. I will do some test migrations with our
preferences and push a test repo for review.
Thanks,
Senthil
___
c
I just did a quick test and the "#" linking in commit messages only
seems to occur if the issue exists at the time of pushing a commit. See
https://github.com/brettcannon/gidgethub/commit/31fd4df5e3ade210fbfa39e557095c1516c02c27
for
an instance where "#2" didn't link since I didn't have an issu
On Feb 3, 2017, at 19:02, Senthil Kumaran wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> That's a question for Senthil, but I would be a little worried about editing
>> the history as the match should be probably s/issue #(\d+)/bpo-\1/ and it
>> shows how easy it is to miss edge
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 16:25 Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 19:16, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 16:06 Ned Deily wrote:
> >> 2. What about Misc/NEWS entries? Are we going to continue to ask
> committers to use the old format (Issue #n) there? Note these are
> current
On Feb 3, 2017, at 19:16, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 16:06 Ned Deily wrote:
>> 2. What about Misc/NEWS entries? Are we going to continue to ask committers
>> to use the old format (Issue #n) there? Note these are currently
>> auto-linked in the docs builds, e.g.
>> https
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 16:06 Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 18:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > It looks like people in general prefer "bpo-" (sorry, Ned and MAL).
>
> I'll live. :)
>
> > Maciej, can we update the requisite regexes so that bpo- is
> acceptable in PR titles, PR comments,
On Feb 3, 2017, at 18:24, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It looks like people in general prefer "bpo-" (sorry, Ned and MAL).
I'll live. :)
> Maciej, can we update the requisite regexes so that bpo- is acceptable in
> PR titles, PR comments, and commit messages?
Two things:
1. What about Maciej
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> That's a question for Senthil, but I would be a little worried about editing
> the history as the match should be probably s/issue #(\d+)/bpo-\1/ and it
> shows how easy it is to miss edge cases.
It's easy to make the changes in the commit mes
It looks like people in general prefer "bpo-" (sorry, Ned and MAL).
Maciej, can we update the requisite regexes so that bpo- is acceptable
in PR titles, PR comments, and commit messages?
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 09:43 Brett Cannon wrote:
> Historically commit messages for CPython have had
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:13 AM, Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> as the match should be probably s/issue #(\d+)/bpo-\1/ and it shows how
>> easy it is to miss edge cases.
>
>
> No, I deliberately omitted the
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> as the match should be probably s/issue #(\d+)/bpo-\1/ and it shows how
> easy it is to miss edge cases.
No, I deliberately omitted the "issue" part because AFAIK things like
"Closes #" are valid references. I don't mind seeing "issue b
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 15:45 Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 18:14, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 14:34 Ned Deily wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:35, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 12:23 Ned Deily wrote:
> >> >> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.
That's a question for Senthil, but I would be a little worried about
editing the history as the match should be probably s/issue #(\d+)/bpo-\1/
and it shows how easy it is to miss edge cases.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 15:56 Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> For old issues that won't be a possibility,
How hard would it be to s/#(\d+)/bpo-\1/ the commit messages during hg to
git conversion? I did something like that in the past when I converted an
svn-based project to git.
__
On Feb 1, 2017, at 18:14, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 14:34 Ned Deily wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:35, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 12:23 Ned Deily wrote:
>> >> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Are we planning to alter existing
>> >> commit messages
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 15:14 Berker Peksağ wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:35, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 12:23 Ned Deily wrote:
> >>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Are we planning to alter
> existing commit messa
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 14:34 Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:35, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 12:23 Ned Deily wrote:
> >> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Are we planning to alter
> existing commit messages as part of the hg to fit transition?
> > No, we are not
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:33 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:35, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 12:23 Ned Deily wrote:
>>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Are we planning to alter existing
>>> commit messages as part of the hg to fit transition?
>> No, we are n
On Feb 1, 2017, at 16:35, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 12:23 Ned Deily wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Are we planning to alter existing
>> commit messages as part of the hg to fit transition?
> No, we are not mucking with the history as part of the transition.
On 1 February 2017 at 22:36, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 13:21 Alexander Belopolsky
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>> bpo ("bpo" stands for "bugs.python.org")
>> Shouldn't it be bpo- for consistency with gh-?
>
> It could be. It's r
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 13:21 Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> bpo ("bpo" stands for "bugs.python.org")
>
>
> Shouldn't it be bpo- for consistency with gh-?
>
It could be. It's really up to us as
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I seem to recall that some project I contributed to used gh- shortcuts
> consistently.
Actually, that project was NumPy.
___
core-workflow mailing list
core
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I've never seen anyone actually use GH- in the wild
I certainly did use it even though I can't find a reference off hand. I
seem to recall that some project I contributed to used gh- shortcuts
consistently. That's how I first learned a
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 12:23 Ned Deily wrote:
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Are we planning to alter existing
> commit messages as part of the hg to fit transition?
>
No, we are not mucking with the history as part of the transition.
-Brett
>
> --
> Ned Deily
> n...@pytho
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> bpo ("bpo" stands for "bugs.python.org")
>
Shouldn't it be bpo- for consistency with gh-?
___
core-workflow mailing list
core-workflow@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Are we planning to alter existing
commit messages as part of the hg to fit transition?
--
Ned Deily
n...@python.org -- []
___
core-workflow mailing list
core-workflow@python.org
https://mail.python.or
On 1 February 2017 at 21:07, Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 14:56, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Doomsday scenario:
>>
>> - Roundup doesn't move to Python 3 (or some other reason)
>> - We then move off of Roundup
>> - New solution doesn't let us choose our issue #s (e.g. GitHub issues)
>> - Now w
On Feb 1, 2017, at 14:56, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Doomsday scenario:
>
> - Roundup doesn't move to Python 3 (or some other reason)
> - We then move off of Roundup
> - New solution doesn't let us choose our issue #s (e.g. GitHub issues)
> - Now we have to namespace our issues going forward
>
> So i
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017, 11:43 Ned Deily, wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 14:14, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 11:02 Ned Deily wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> > Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue
> #: did something".
On Feb 1, 2017, at 14:14, Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 11:02 Ned Deily wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue
>> > #: did something". The problem is that Github automatically links
>>
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 11:21 Matthias Bussonnier <
bussonniermatth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> * is there any mechanism (hooks/bots/etc) that allows us to convert
> >> # to an explicit link (i.e.
> >> [#](http://bugs.python.org/issue) )?
>
> > Not sure. I assume it will be overridden.
>
>> * is there any mechanism (hooks/bots/etc) that allows us to convert
>> # to an explicit link (i.e.
>> [#](http://bugs.python.org/issue) )?
> Not sure. I assume it will be overridden.
You should be able to do it in issues/PR messages with a bot that have
the right permission, but
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 11:02 Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
> > Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue
> #: did something". The problem is that Github automatically links
> "#" to GitHub issues (which includes pull requests).
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 10:52 Ezio Melotti wrote:
> +1 on bpo
> +0.5 on issue
> -0.5 on bug
>
> However I wonder if there's any way to change the automatic GitHub
> links, or at least disable them. Even if we agree on a convention, it
> will take time to educate contributors, especi
On 01.02.2017 20:02, Ned Deily wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue #:
>> did something". The problem is that Github automatically links "#" to
>> GitHub issues (which includes pull requests). To pr
On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:43, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue #:
> did something". The problem is that Github automatically links "#" to
> GitHub issues (which includes pull requests). To prevent incorrect linking we
> need to chang
+1 on bpo
+0.5 on issue
-0.5 on bug
However I wonder if there's any way to change the automatic GitHub
links, or at least disable them. Even if we agree on a convention, it
will take time to educate contributors, especially new or occasional
ones (unless we have a way to put a disc
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue #:
> did something". The problem is that Github automatically links "#" to
> GitHub issues (which includes pull requests). To prevent incorrect linking
> we need to ch
Hmm...
+1 bpo
-1 bug , not everything is a bug
+1 issue , I'm new, so I don't have any 'old habit' yet :P
Mariatta Wijaya
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue
> #: did something". The problem
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> To start this off, I'm -1 on "issue" (because people will out of habit add
> the #), +0 on "bug" (it's different but not everything is a bug), and +1 on
> "bpo" (as it namespaces our issues).
+1 to those votes (issue -1, bug +0, bpo +1).
--
Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue #:
did something". The problem is that Github automatically links "#" to
GitHub issues (which includes pull requests). To prevent incorrect linking
we need to change how we reference issue numbers.
The current candidates
66 matches
Mail list logo
