[core-workflow] Final chance to express opinion on history rewrite for issue #s

[Zachary Ware]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 February 2017 at 18:42, Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>>> +1: Nick, Senthil, Chris
>>> +0: ...
>>> -0: Martin, Brett
>>> -1: Naoki, Berker
>>
>> Since we don't get clickable links any way about it, -1 on rewriting
>> commit messages.  Too easy to accidentally mess things up for no real
>> benefit.
>
> Rewriting the history means we *do* get clickable links for anyone
> that wants them, as a distinctive string like "bpo-12345" is amenable
> to automated conversion into a hyperlink via a client side script in
> GreaseMonkey or similar.
>
> You can't readily do that with "#12345" or even "Issue #12345" because
> they're too generic.

I don't see how we can say they're too generic for a GreaseMonkey
script to match, but not for rewriting history.

An option that I would be less against would be to, instead of
rewriting the actual message, tack '\n\n[bpo-12345]' onto the end of
the message. At least that way any misfires would be non-destructive.

-- 
Zach