On 4 February 2017 at 02:44, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 17:32 Senthil Kumaran <sent...@uthcode.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> > And since we will be creating a new project there will be no >> > pre-existing >> > issues to accidentally link to when we push the converted repo. >> >> That's a good news.. Thanks for testing this, Brett. This seems to >> apply to both issues and pull requests >> >> I was not worried about issues, since we would be using b.p.o. I was >> thinking pull-requests could cause problems, if there was any auto >> hyperlink happening. >> >> The choice is still with us. We can rewrite #NNNN to "bpo NNNN" if we >> want. >> >> +ve: It seems future proof to me. >> -ve: Looks a bit ugly when compared to #NNNN > > > I say try rewriting s/#(\d+)/bpo-\1/ and let's see how it turns out if > you're up for it, Senthil (notice I went with the hyphen approach for > "bpo-").
There's an added UX bonus to doing this: "learn by example" from the old commit messages will nudge folks towards using the new naming scheme. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
