On 7 February 2017 at 18:39, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > Just to remind people, the migration is happening Friday, so we need to make > a yay/nay on whether we are going to tweak the history as Senthil has tested > very soon. So I'm putting a deadline of Wednesday night to vote on whether > we should tweak the history as proposed. I'll look at the results and will > make a final decision Thursday as to whether we will tweak the history or > leave it as-is. > > So far Maciej is +1 on the change, which puts the change in the lead. :)
+1 from me on making the change, based on the following assessment of the two options: * Do nothing (-1): - human readers are likely to expect "#1234" on GitHub to refer to GitHub issues, but we're not using the GitHub issue tracker - we *know* the old cross-links won't work and we'll never be able to make them work due to the clash with the native issue referencing syntax * Reformat (+1): - human readers are unlikely to interpret "bpo-12345" as a GitHub issue reference - if GitHub and/or other git hosting platforms like GitLab gain a project-wide regex based link generation mechanism, we'll have a suitable format to take advantage of it - even if "#(\d+)" does misfire on a few messages, it would be relatively easy to mentally translate from "bpo-12345" back to "#12345" in context 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
