[core-workflow] Choosing a prefix/label for issue numbers

[Brett Cannon]

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 <senthil at uthcode.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Ezio Melotti <ezio.melotti at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 2017 3:52 AM, "Martin Panter" <vadmium+py at gmail.com> 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 person who
> > originally made the commit, etc.
> >
>
> Thanks for the valuable feedback, Martin and Ezio.
>
> > If the range check is implemented, this won't match.  If there are low
> > numbered SF issues and the SF prefix is commonly used, it could be added
> to
>
>
> As you both pointed out and as I browse through the commits at
> https://github.com/orsenthil/cpython-migration-test/commits/master
> after the #NNNN to bpo-NNNN
>
> _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement.
>
> 1) Rename #NNNN, Issue #NNNN, issue #NNNN, IssueNNNN, issueNNNN to bpo-NNNN
> 2) Looking for numbers 1000 and above which don't start with SF, is
> okay with me as it can reduce the false positives.
>
> The change I did to hg-git was this:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/orsenthil/hg-git/commits/75408e7efdbc73a4da435080f23fb0f1194e23b6
>
> And that other rules that we are discussing can be included.
>
>
> I am +1 to change if we do it consistently for all different
> {IssueNNNN, issueNNNN, Issue #NNNN, issue #NNNN, #NNNN, SF #NNNN}
> usage.
> As Nick pointed out earlier in this thread, the positive aspect of
> rewriting includes, showing an example for how new commit messages are
> to be written.
>
> If we don't want to span it across all issue formats, but restrict it
> only to #NNNN, then I am -1. As Martin points out, it looks half done
> to me.
>
> Also, other feedback from Martin was to not have hg branch annotation.
> E.g: https://github.com/orsenthil/cpython-migration-test/commit/851c48a
>
> That can be removed. I am unable to decide on the merits/de-merits.
> hg-git tool seems to be doing that commit extra messages by default.
> The annotation gives information that commit was originally done in
> that particular hg branch.
>
> Thank you,
> Senthil
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170208/f1680555/attachment-0001.html>