[core-workflow] What do people want Bedevere to do for issue numbers in PRs?

[Donald Stufft]

What about editing the original message to include a link in addition to the status check?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 15, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> 
> When I implemented Bedevere's bpo issue number detection it was to do it as a status check as I thought that's what people wanted (https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/13). But now others are saying they want a comment with a link to the issue number (https://github.com/python/bedevere/issues/3).
> 
> So which one(s)? :) The status check has the perk of being very visible so that people know it's missing (arguably if you don't check your PR you won't notice the failure, but if you're not checking the status of the PR then there are other problems to attend to). The drawback is that you have to know that the Details link for a successful check links to bugs.python.org and that once the PR is closed the link is gone. The perk of a comment is it's in your face and easy to find. The drawback of a comment is you always be notified about the comment which might get tiresome.
> 
> So what I'm asking is what do people want? The status check? A comment? Both? I know people want *something* since dealing with specifying the issue number has been coming up consistently since we started the new workflow, but at this point I want a clear understanding of what people want so this can be settled appropriately.
> _______________________________________________
> core-workflow mailing list
> core-workflow at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20170415/c3770e3b/attachment.html>