On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 at 20:29 Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > Just a reminder that I'l make a decision about this tomorrow so Senthil > has > > a day to test a conversion with the proposal below. So if you like what > > Senthil is proposing then please say so, else you can also say you don't > > want any history rewriting. > > I'm +1 on history rewriting as part of the move. Having unambiguous > clickable links is worth the risk of false positives. >
I think everyone is forgetting that I did an experiment where the links don't show up if there is no pre-existing issue or PR to connect with. That means there shouldn't be any expectation of bad links from the initial push, only if we continue to use the #NNNN format going forward.
_______________________________________________ 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
