incorrect PR references (possibly limited to patatrack prs?)

[davidlange6]

I noticed this while browsing cmssw code

of course #557 in the cmssw repo has nothing to with this code change. I presume its instead from the patatrack repository instead. Can we get the crossreferences to be correct at least for future PRs?

[cmsbuild]

A new Issue was created by @davidlange6 David Lange.

@Dr15Jones, @dpiparo, @silviodonato, @smuzaffar, @makortel, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[makortel]

assign core

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: core

@Dr15Jones,@smuzaffar,@makortel you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[makortel]

I suppose this is a "feature" whenever PRs in forks of cms-sw/cmssw are merged there, and then the branch containing such merges is PR'd+merged in the main cms-sw/cmssw. I have seen these also before the Patatrack PRs.

Fixing the references to point the correct fork would require rewriting the commit messages. A script itself to do that should be straightforward (assuming all the references are from a single fork). I'm less certain how much that could be reliably automated.

[makortel]

Here is a similar observation elsewhere isaacs/github#1072 .

[makortel]

Let me also add @fwyzard explicitly to comment

Can we get the crossreferences to be correct at least for future PRs?

[fwyzard]

Mhm, I see.

I can fix the commit history it for all the Patatrack PRs that are still open.

I guess we don't want to re-write the history to fix the past commits, though ?

[makortel]

I can fix the commit history it for all the Patatrack PRs that are still open.

Thanks Andrea!

I guess we don't want to re-write the history to fix the past commits, though ?

My feeling is the same, i.e. these would not be big-enough deal to justify the trouble of rewriting the history of master.

One option towards preventing such PRs to be merged in the future would be to detect if any of the commit messages contain a PR/issue reference, and ask the author and reviewers to double-check those. I'm not sure if we could automatically identify non-cms-sw/cmssw references though, and just adding a message by @cmsbot could be easily missed.