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 > >> #NNNN to an explicit link (i.e. > >> [#NNNN](http://bugs.python.org/issueNNNN) )? > > > 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 not in commits. Which will be annoying. > Also even after edition, the "this issue has been referenced in" will > still be there. > > The other annoying thing, is that if a `Fix #XXX`/`Close #XXX` message > end up on the master branch it will auto close the github XXXX > issue/PR. > So you might even want to make sure people do not use #XXX to not > autoclose by mistake. I'm unsure if # is necessary The # is required: https://help.github.com/articles/autolinked-references-and-urls/#issues-and-pull-requests > but the following > words in a commit message can trigger autoclosing of an issue/PR: > > close > closes > closed > fix > fixes > fixed > resolve > resolves > resolved > > I believe `issue` (maybe other things) can be put after the above > words will still trigger autoclose. https://help.github.com/articles/closing-issues-via-commit-messages/ seems to suggest that it won't work with "issue" added in. > So I would advise against using > something that could be not only autolink, but would autoclose things > as well. > > Personally I would lean toward `bpo`. > As a reference point of how others handle this,GitHub also links GH-NNNN which obviously namespaces things (I should also mention that hg.python.org/lookup also now supports "git" and "hg" prefixes on commit IDs/hashes to easily differentiate since Python as a project continues to outlive the infrastructure it runs on :) . -Brett > > Cheers, > -- > M > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 10:52 Ezio Melotti <ezio.melo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> +1 on bpo NNNN > >> +0.5 on issue NNNN > >> -0.5 on bug NNNN > >> > >> 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 disclaimer in a prominent place). > >> > >> I'm not too familiar with GitHub, but: > >> * can the link target be changed (i.e. from github.com to > >> bugs.python.org)? > > > > > > No > > > >> > >> * can it be disabled? > > > > > > No > > > >> > >> * if the corresponding issue doesn't exist, will the link still be > >> created? > > > > > > No > > > >> > >> * if it won't be created, will it link to PRs instead (once we have > >> enough)? > > > > > > PRs and issues are the same thing to GitHub in this instance. > > > >> > >> * is there any mechanism (hooks/bots/etc) that allows us to convert > >> #NNNN to an explicit link (i.e. > >> [#NNNN](http://bugs.python.org/issueNNNN) )? > > > > > > Not sure. I assume it will be overridden. > > > >> > >> * if there is, can it be used on PR titles, PR messages, and commit > >> messages? > > > > > > Not titles, yes on messages. > > > > -Brett > > > >> > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> Ezio Melotti > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > >> > Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue > >> > #NNNN: > >> > did something". The problem is that Github automatically links "#NNNN" > >> > to > >> > GitHub issues (which includes pull requests). To prevent incorrect > >> > linking > >> > we need to change how we reference issue numbers. > >> > > >> > The current candidates are: > >> > > >> > issue NNNN (notice the lack of #) > >> > > >> > bug NNNN > >> > > >> > bpo NNNN ("bpo" stands for "bugs.python.org") > >> > > >> > Whatever choice we go with it will be how we reference issues in PR > >> > titles > >> > and comments to link the PR to the issue, and in commit messages to > send > >> > a > >> > message to the issue about the commit. > >> > > >> > 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). > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > core-workflow mailing list > >> > core-workflow@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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > core-workflow mailing list > > core-workflow@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 >
_______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@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
