How hard can it be? If Bitbucket was designed properly this would be a quick change.

We've moved our entire company to Github which is more expensive that Bitbucket. 

We figure it's cheaper than waiting for hell to freeze over, or even get a reliable community engagement on a roadmap for ideas.

This functionality is configurable over at Github now.

+1 This should be configurable, just pulling the last commit message can make pull requests look weird and inconsistent. Why is it whenever a change like this is made they don't bother to make it configurable.

github is where they must have got this behavior "idea" from actually, since that's the it works there

This is one of the many reasons why github dominates.

+1 Please take action on this.

This is messing up Bitbucket's ability to report the linked Jira issues. I'd be willing to bet there's far more people who want good Bitbucket integration than those who like seeing the commit message on PRs. The default behavior should be to name PRs with the branch name regardless of how many commits they have. Or at least give us the option.

+1 Using a commit message as a title is unhelpful when wading through many PRs–i.e. in any active business production

Current behavior is especially annoying at porting changes to older branches

• a pull-request to master is merged, with commit message like "Merge pull request #NNN in RRR from BBBB to master"
• the merge commit is cherry-picked to version branch VVV
• the pull request to version branch is titled by this name which has this very misleading "..to master" and is not very appropriate PR name anyway

+1, now it's hard to track pull request for a functionality in various repositories...

+1 to this

Having to hack the email templates is never fun and hard to maintain across updates. Any updates on this?