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

[Ezio Melotti]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 at 14:20 Zachary Ware <zachary.ware+pydev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>> > OK, executive decision: let's test a rewrite but only for things that
>> > match
>> > the regex at the beginning of the commit message (using Senthil's long
>> > list
>> > of possible formats so we get "bpo-NNNN" and not "Issue bpo-NNNN"). That
>> > won't have any false-positives and still gets us consistent issue naming
>> > for
>> > the whole repo (at least in the commit summary line, but that will also
>> > act
>> > as a scope to the commit that any ambiguous "#NNNN" numbers apply to
>> > bpo).
>> > If this test doesn't lead to people being happy we will abandon the idea
>> > of
>> > any history rewriting for tomorrow.
>>
>> Note that matching only the beginning of the message will miss several
>> recent commits like:
>>
>> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/7b8df4a5d81d
>> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/31342913fb1e
>> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/37705f89c72b
>
>
> Beginning of line would catch these, so using re.MULTILINE would cover
> those.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> There is also the issue of multiple issue numbers in a message:
>>
>> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a5538734cc87
>> https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/ffc0840762e4
>
>
> Yep, this will never be perfect, hence it's either best-effort or we simply
> don't do it.
>

I'm working with Senthil on it.
We don't think it's necessary to limit it to the beginning of the line.

Thanks for test cases Zach!