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

[Nick Coghlan]

On 4 February 2017 at 02:44, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 at 17:32 Senthil Kumaran <senthil at uthcode.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>> > And since we will be creating a new project there will be no
>> > pre-existing
>> > issues to accidentally link to when we push the converted repo.
>>
>> That's a good news.. Thanks for testing this, Brett. This seems to
>> apply to both issues and pull requests
>>
>> I was not worried about issues, since we would be using b.p.o. I was
>> thinking pull-requests could cause problems, if there was any auto
>> hyperlink happening.
>>
>> The choice is still with us. We can rewrite #NNNN to "bpo NNNN" if we
>> want.
>>
>> +ve: It seems future proof to me.
>> -ve: Looks a bit ugly when compared to #NNNN
>
>
> I say try rewriting s/#(\d+)/bpo-\1/ and let's see how it turns out if
> you're up for it, Senthil (notice I went with the hyphen approach for
> "bpo-").

There's an added UX bonus to doing this: "learn by example" from the
old commit messages will nudge folks towards using the new naming
scheme.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia