-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17.8k
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
Referencing commits #17118
Comments
Excellent question! The advice has not changed AFAIK, though we have not generally enforced it too heavily. Case in point, I am (the only) member who uses the "gh" convention, and I'm a core-committer 😄 |
The reason why we would prefer to prefix commit references with "GH" (or "gh-") is because it is clearer that this issue / PR was filed on GitHub and not some other hosting platform. Using the "#" is ambiguous. That being said, the reason why I use "gh-" is because it receives special parsing from GitHub so that you can navigate to the actual issue / PR directly, which doesn't happen with "GH." The special parsing also happens when you use "#". I thus find "gh-" to be the best of both worlds in terms of clarity and special parsing 😄 |
@jebob : I'm closing this for now since we have been able to address your question (hopefully), but let me know if you would like me to elaborate OR would like to update the docs, and I can reopen this. |
Thanks! |
The docs state
But out of the most recent commits, a majority uses the latter style and a minority use gh-1234. Has the advice changed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: