-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Mapping bpo numbers in what's new does not reference GitHub issues correctly. #91567
Comments
Ping @ezio-melotti |
I notice that the developer guide recommends that a gh- prefix be added to all pull requests we could possibly use this to detect as in 4 above, possibly combined with a git off number for any bare # numbers. |
Found that I can export from BPO to a .csv file and then parse it to a dictionary (7121 entries) of BPO numbers to GH numbers - the BPO numbers run from 1062 to 1776674 and the GH numbers from 34627 to 91417 to there is significant overlap - but only 41 collisions. |
This should already be fixed in #91454 |
bugs.python.org supports automatic redirects now, but I was thinking to expose an API to get the GitHub id from a bpo id (or even just the whole mapping) if it's useful. Note that issues with an high ID (>100k) are old issues that have been migrated from SourceForge when we switched to Roundup, and they kept their old ids. See psf/gh-migration#1 for more info. |
In the document build process the code in
Doc/tools/extensions/pyspecific.py
maps BPO or # references to bugs.python.org which as been retired and replaced with Issues in https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/ however while the issues that existed at bugs.python.org all have been ported to https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/ the reference numbers are not the same so simply changing the URL does not map to the correct issue - e.g. BPO-45292 was https://bugs.python.org/issue45292 but is now #89455 i.e. 89455 not 45292Possible approaches include:
#
without a BPO prefix reference the GitHub issue but map those with the prefix to BPO. Risk that some older issue references also just use#
and are incorrectly mapped as a result.Some guidance/discussion on the preferred approach is needed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: