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

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 11:51 Senthil Kumaran <senthil at uthcode.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If people don't like that idea the appending works for me if it isn't
> >> difficult for Senthil.
> >
> > but I'd still prefer this to not having the modified version at all.
>
> It's not difficult and I am open to these suggestions.  I hope we can
> settle upon something that will serve us well in utility value.
>
> If many folks are still apprehensive, not changing is fine with me.
> It's will be a slight inconvenience with historical commit messages.
>

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20170209/6ba50de5/attachment.html>