On Feb 1, 2017, at 14:56, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > Doomsday scenario: > > - Roundup doesn't move to Python 3 (or some other reason) > - We then move off of Roundup > - New solution doesn't let us choose our issue #s (e.g. GitHub issues) > - Now we have to namespace our issues going forward > > So in my head we're going to have to deal with this someday anyway, so why > not tweak it now instead of putting it off?
We've already transitioned through various bug trackers in a compatible manner. And who's to say that we might not decide to use bugs.python.org with something other than Roundup sometime in the future? But, assuming the doomsday scenario should come to pass, we could choose to add a new namespace then, gitbugnnnn or whatever, if we then need to and then decide issuennnnn refers only to old bugs. I don't see why we need to worry about this now when it may never be an issue, so to speak. And bponnnn seems really clunky. -- Ned Deily n...@python.org -- [] _______________________________________________ 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
