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

[Nick Coghlan]

On 9 February 2017 at 18:59, Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

Rewriting the history has a lot more context: Senthil *knows* that his
script is reading CPython commit messages.

Without the more specific prefix, a GreasemonkeyScript would need to
be configured to only run on relevant URLs, which is definitely
possible, but would be pretty annoying to set up.

> 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.

That's actually the way hg.python.org injects the links now:
https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/b07d454e45a2

So +1 from me for appending the references to the old messages rather
than modifying them in place.

Cheers,
Nick.

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