On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Berker Peksağ <berker.pek...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Senthil Kumaran <sent...@uthcode.com> wrote: > > _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement. > > > > 1) Rename #NNNN, Issue #NNNN, issue #NNNN, IssueNNNN, issueNNNN to bpo-NNNN > > 2) Looking for numbers 1000 and above which don't start with SF, is > > okay with me as it can reduce the false positives. > > Count me as -1 for history rewrite. There are many different commit > message styles and we probably will miss some edge cases :) >
If the alternative is having broken/misleading links that point to unrelated github PRs, I'd rather rewrite -- even if we miss a few edge cases. I think we can come up with a regex that matches most of them. > > Also, other feedback from Martin was to not have hg branch annotation. > > E.g: https://github.com/orsenthil/cpython-migration-test/commit/851c48a > > > > That can be removed. I am unable to decide on the merits/de-merits. > > hg-git tool seems to be doing that commit extra messages by default. > > The annotation gives information that commit was originally done in > > that particular hg branch. > > +1 for removing the branch annotation. +0 if there is no easy way to do it. > +1 for me as well. I don't think branch info belongs in the commit message. Can it be saved in a separate field? > Thank you for working on this, Senthil! > > --Berker _______________________________________________ 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
