Move emojis from food-marine to animal-marine (#753)

[nedley]

See

• Move emojis from food-marine to animal-marine #753
• https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-14799

Also incorporate new CLDR localizations for Mx claus.

[markusicu]

Did you mean "clause" instead of "claus"?
Is there an action item for these changes? Or a CLDR ticket?

[markusicu]

Did you mean "clause" instead of "claus"?

Ignore this question...
Changes lgtm; would be nice to document where the changes came from.

[nedley]

The name “Mx claus” is entirely up to CLDR. Even if the new capitalization is nonsensical (why “Mx claus” and not “Mx Claus”?) all I can do is file a ticket to find out what they were thinking.

[nedley]

https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-17701

[markusicu]

Is there an action item for these changes? Or a CLDR ticket?

What I meant to ask here is where these changes are coming from.
Are they just the result of sucking in the latest CLDR data?
Is there an action item or CLDR ticket for the reclassification?

[nedley]

What I meant to ask here is where these changes are coming from.
Are they just the result of sucking in the latest CLDR data?

The emoji data files use CLDR short names, which unlike Unicode character names are not stable. So these changes are due to my having updated CLDR in order to build.

[markusicu]

And the changes mentioned in the title? “Move emojis from food-marine to animal-marine”
Are they also just a result of updating CLDR?

[nedley]

I made the change to emojiOrdering.txt as per #753, which is the headliner, the rest is generated.

[markusicu]

I made the change to emojiOrdering.txt as per #753, which is the headliner,

Sorry, I totally missed that. I made it more explicit in the PR description now.

[nedley]

Is there a more straightforward way to attach a PR (this one) to an existing issue (#753) to avoid this type of confusion in the future?

[macchiati]

FYI, it was an oversight with "claus", so that should be fixed in CLDR soon.

[macchiati]

Once you merge, let me know and I'll make a PR on the CLDR side.

…

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:00 AM Ned Holbrook ***@***.***> wrote: Is there a more straightforward way to attach a PR (this one) to an existing issue (#753 <#753>) to avoid this type of confusion in the future? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#844 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACJLEMA5TPNUIDSPHYL2X2LZF472HAVCNFSM6AAAAABIZAHHKWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCNJQGUZTSMBXGE> . You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[nedley]

Deleted my previous comment since I misunderstood Mark’s request.

[nedley]

@macchiati Merged.

[macchiati]

Great, I can take it from here.

[markusicu]

Is there a more straightforward way to attach a PR (this one) to an existing issue (#753) to avoid this type of confusion in the future?

I didn't notice it in the title where it says “... to animal-marine (#753) #844” with the first number in black and the second in gray.

I suggest you mention the issue in the description instead.

If you want to formally connect them, you can say something like the following in the PR description:

Fixes #753

--> see https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/using-keywords-in-issues-and-pull-requests

Also, if you want to link a PR to an issue, but not close that issue when merging the PR, you should be able to explicitly add the issue on the right side under "Development". (I haven't used that yet.)

[nedley]

Thanks. I’m much more used to the flow we use here, which doesn’t intermingle ticket and PR numbers.