What about editing the original message to include a link in addition to the status check?
Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 15, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > When I implemented Bedevere's bpo issue number detection it was to do it as a > status check as I thought that's what people wanted > (https://github.com/python/core-workflow/issues/13). But now others are > saying they want a comment with a link to the issue number > (https://github.com/python/bedevere/issues/3). > > So which one(s)? :) The status check has the perk of being very visible so > that people know it's missing (arguably if you don't check your PR you won't > notice the failure, but if you're not checking the status of the PR then > there are other problems to attend to). The drawback is that you have to know > that the Details link for a successful check links to bugs.python.org and > that once the PR is closed the link is gone. The perk of a comment is it's in > your face and easy to find. The drawback of a comment is you always be > notified about the comment which might get tiresome. > > So what I'm asking is what do people want? The status check? A comment? Both? > I know people want *something* since dealing with specifying the issue number > has been coming up consistently since we started the new workflow, but at > this point I want a clear understanding of what people want so this can be > settled appropriately. > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
