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
On 2017-01-31 1:24 PM, Ezio Melotti wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Alexander Belopolsky
wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Ezio Melotti
wrote:
you can submit a project idea for GSoC by the 7th of
February.
Where can I find instructions on how to do it? I may have an idea
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).
--
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 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
+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 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
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 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 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).
>> * 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 11:21 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.
>
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, 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 14:56, 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 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
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 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
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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.
__
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, 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.
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
