[core-workflow] Choosing a prefix/label for issue numbers

[Brett Cannon]

It looks like people in general prefer "bpo-NNNN" (sorry, Ned and MAL).

Maciej, can we update the requisite regexes so that bpo-NNNN is acceptable
in PR titles, PR comments, and commit messages?

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 at 09:43 Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:

> Historically commit messages for CPython have had the form of "Issue
> #NNNN: did something". The problem is that Github automatically links
> "#NNNN" to GitHub issues (which includes pull requests). To prevent
> incorrect linking we need to change how we reference issue numbers.
>
> The current candidates are:
>
>    issue NNNN (notice the lack of #)
>
>     bug NNNN
>
>     bpo NNNN ("bpo" stands for "bugs.python.org")
>
> Whatever choice we go with it will be how we reference issues in PR titles
> and comments to link the PR to the issue, and in commit messages to send a
> message to the issue about the commit.
>
> To start this off, I'm -1 on "issue" (because people will out of habit add
> the #), +0 on "bug" (it's different but not everything is a bug), and +1 on
> "bpo" (as it namespaces our issues).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20170203/55b813d2/attachment.html>