[core-workflow] Final chance to express opinion on history rewrite for issue #s

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 14:20 Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Note that matching only the beginning of the message will miss several
> recent commits like:
>
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7b8df4a5d81d
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/31342913fb1e
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/37705f89c72b


Beginning of line would catch these, so using re.MULTILINE would cover
those.


>
>
> There is also the issue of multiple issue numbers in a message:
>
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a5538734cc87
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ffc0840762e4


Yep, this will never be perfect, hence it's either best-effort or we simply
don't do it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20170209/2e31b6d0/attachment.html>