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

[Berker Peksağ]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
> In the end I decided NOT to do the history mutation/rewrite basically
> because I didn't discuss this with python-committers ahead of time (so it's
> entirely my fault this didn't go forward). The history of this repo -- along
> with the code -- is collectively owned by all of the people who have
> contributed to it. The idea of mutating the history like this was not
> discussed with the stakeholders/contributors of that history ahead of time
> and thus I don't feel it is my place to unilaterally muck with it without
> having a proper discussion ahead of time (I unfortunately didn't have this
> thought until this morning). While I realize I have been given the rights to
> change our workflow, none of these changes are permanent (as our regular
> changes to it show :) . But changing the history is permanent and thus a
> much heftier thing to do with the dictatorial powers I have for this
> migration.
>
> Had I thought to reach out ahead of time then it's possible I could have
> gotten the permission necessary. But since leaving this as-is doesn't hurt
> anything (thanks to GH doing the linking eagerly and thus not picking up any
> of the issue numbers that pre-exist), I felt it was better to err on the
> side of caution and not upset people by springing this on them.
>
> Obviously a huge thanks to Senthil and Ezio for giving this a go. The regex
> will be useful for anyone who wants to write a browser plug-in to add the
> automatic linking so I don't view the work as wasted.

+1, I've already started to write an extension and I'm converting the
regex to JS flavor now so thanks again Senthil and Ezio!

--Berker