Page MenuHomePhabricator

Give Owners packages the "O" monogram
ClosedPublic

Authored by epriestley on May 13 2016, 2:43 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F14356985: D15910.id38326.diff
Fri, Dec 20, 1:53 AM
F14356980: D15910.id38314.diff
Fri, Dec 20, 1:53 AM
F14356971: D15910.id.diff
Fri, Dec 20, 1:51 AM
F14356837: D15910.diff
Fri, Dec 20, 12:40 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Dec 17, 7:38 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Dec 13, 1:03 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Dec 12, 10:33 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Dec 12, 10:33 PM
Subscribers
None

Details

Summary

Ref T10939. This isn't ideal because it's easy to confuse with zero ("O" vs "0") but I think this will mostly be read-only so it's probably one of the least-bad uses we could make of "O". We haven't really gotten into trouble with "I" (vs "1") for initiatives. Still, open to better ideas.

The goal here is to allow commit messages to include packages in some reasonable way, like Reviewers: O123 Package Name, epriestley, alincoln. The parser will ignore the "Package Name" part, that's just for humans. And I don't expect humans to type this, but when the use arc diff --edit or similar to update an existing revision, the reviewer needs to be represented somehow. It also needs to appear in the commit messages that arc land finalizes somehow.

I didn't hook up /O123 as a URI, but this should do everything else I think.

Test Plan
  • Viewed package list.
  • Viewed package detail.
  • Did global search for O12.
  • Used O12 and {O12} remarkup rules.

Diff Detail

Repository
rP Phabricator
Branch
owners3
Lint
Lint Passed
Unit
Tests Passed
Build Status
Buildable 12186
Build 15382: Run Core Tests
Build 15381: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

epriestley retitled this revision from to Give Owners packages the "O" monogram.
epriestley updated this object.
epriestley edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
epriestley added a reviewer: chad.
chad edited edge metadata.

At least O and 0 in this font are reasonable.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 13 2016, 3:01 PM

Yeah, I think they're usually OK in most monospaced fonts too:

Screen Shot 2016-05-13 at 8.01.42 AM.png (60×87 px, 5 KB)

Not ideal but probably not completely terrible, I think.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.