On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 14:20 Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+py...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > OK, executive decision: let's test a rewrite but only for things that > match > > the regex at the beginning of the commit message (using Senthil's long > list > > of possible formats so we get "bpo-NNNN" and not "Issue bpo-NNNN"). That > > won't have any false-positives and still gets us consistent issue naming > for > > the whole repo (at least in the commit summary line, but that will also > act > > as a scope to the commit that any ambiguous "#NNNN" numbers apply to > bpo). > > If this test doesn't lead to people being happy we will abandon the idea > of > > any history rewriting for tomorrow. > > Note that matching only the beginning of the message will miss several > recent commits like: > > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7b8df4a5d81d > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/31342913fb1e > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/37705f89c72b Beginning of line would catch these, so using re.MULTILINE would cover those. > > > There is also the issue of multiple issue numbers in a message: > > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a5538734cc87 > https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ffc0840762e4 Yep, this will never be perfect, hence it's either best-effort or we simply don't do it.
_______________________________________________ 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
