On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > 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. >
I'm working with Senthil on it. We don't think it's necessary to limit it to the beginning of the line. Thanks for test cases Zach! _______________________________________________ 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
