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

[Ezio Melotti]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Berker Peksağ <berker.peksag at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Senthil Kumaran <senthil at uthcode.com> wrote:
> > _If we decide to rewrite_, I see the following areas of improvement.
> >
> > 1) Rename #NNNN, Issue #NNNN, issue #NNNN, IssueNNNN, issueNNNN to bpo-NNNN
> > 2) Looking for numbers 1000 and above which don't start with SF, is
> > okay with me as it can reduce the false positives.
>
> Count me as -1 for history rewrite. There are many different commit
> message styles and we probably will miss some edge cases :)
>

If the alternative is having broken/misleading links that point to
unrelated github PRs, I'd rather rewrite -- even if we miss a few edge
cases.  I think we can come up with a regex that matches most of them.

> > Also, other feedback from Martin was to not have hg branch annotation.
> > E.g: https://github.com/orsenthil/cpython-migration-test/commit/851c48a
> >
> > That can be removed. I am unable to decide on the merits/de-merits.
> > hg-git tool seems to be doing that commit extra messages by default.
> > The annotation gives information that commit was originally done in
> > that particular hg branch.
>
> +1 for removing the branch annotation. +0 if there is no easy way to do it.
>

+1 for me as well.
I don't think branch info belongs in the commit message.  Can it be
saved in a separate field?

> Thank you for working on this, Senthil!
>
> --Berker