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

[Maciej Szulik]

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
Sorry, was out this weekend. Sure I'll handle this later today.


>
> 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/20170206/4e7d3eb9/attachment.html>