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

[Maciej Szulik]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Maciej Szulik <soltysh at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>

The fix was applied yesterday and is already live.


>
>> 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/20170207/8c161b10/attachment.html>