Skip to content
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

🧪🎨 Enforce empty trivial change notes #12854

Draft
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

webknjaz
Copy link
Member

This is what the contribution document is asking for but the
automation never checked really. Which led to contributors filling
out trivial changelog entries without realizing that they are never
published.

The patch corrects that and relocates the violating change notes to
better sections.

This is a preparatory step for further adding of new changelog
fragment types.
Said commit is a formatting change.
Previously, the change log had a section called "Process". And some of
the incoming pull requests would add change notes there when they
couldn't be put into other categories. Using it like that is not a
good idea. This patch rethinks the categorization and the audiences of
a few common change types and defines respective categories that
replace "Process".

The new categories are:

  * `packaging` -- news for downstream re-packagers

  * `contrib` -- news for regular project participants

  * `misc` -- public change log for things that don't fit anywhere but
    are useful

Resolves pypa#12555
This is what the contribution document is asking for but the
automation never checked really. Which led to contributors filling
out trivial changelog entries without realizing that they are never
published.

The patch corrects that and relocates the violating change notes to
better sections.
@webknjaz webknjaz force-pushed the maintenance/towncrier-empty-trivial branch from 5cfd158 to 508083b Compare July 15, 2024 22:02
@webknjaz
Copy link
Member Author

N.B. This PR includes commits from #12853. I'll rebase it, once that one is in.

@pradyunsg
Copy link
Member

I don't think we should do this -- having contributors include information in this file is not harmful and it also makes it clearer that the contributor clearly understands both the tone as well as purpose of the notes.

@webknjaz
Copy link
Member Author

@pradyunsg are you commenting on the last commit? If yes — I don't understand why linting should let people put things into /dev/null.

@webknjaz
Copy link
Member Author

@pradyunsg can we deal with #12853 first, so the diff here could be smaller?

|contrib
|misc
|trivial
)(.#)?(.rst)?
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
)(.#)?(.rst)?
)(.#)?.rst

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants