ons 15 juli 2026 kl. 14:36 skrev Evgeny Kotkov via dev < [email protected]>:
> Branko Čibej <[email protected]> writes: > > > Your change adapted to this single specific modification of the section > > headers. The next, slightly different modification will break the script > > again. > > +1. > > > I really think the safest way is to always insert nominations before > > "Approved changes" and to fail if that heading isn't there. If the > headings > > in the file make that insertion dubious, then the heading order should be > > fixed anyway. In the meantime, review of the diff before commit is kind > of > > expected. > > A more complex alternative could be: prompt for the section to insert > the nomination into, excluding the "well-known" Veto-blocked and Approved > sections. If there is only one candidate section, insert into it without > prompting. > > > Yes, I've looked at the script and I'm aware that the parsing code is > opaque > > and complex. I didn't say my proposal leads to a simple change. But it > does > > make the script more future proof. > > A bit off-topic, but do we really want to keep supporting such a complex > script that automates adding STATUS entries and casting votes for them? > > As I see it, the important part is having automation for _merging_ approved > STATUS entries (which we also have). That's useful, because it automates > an error-prone operation that technically requires no manual steps once an > entry has been approved. > > Voting and editing STATUS, on the contrary, are supposed to be manual > operations, because they are all about verifying the change. To my mind, > working with a plain text file containing a list of entries is already > quite convenient by itself and supports all possible kinds of > interactivity. I have no particular love for the script itself. It came into existence as a way to deprecate the old Perl based nomination/backport script (I realise that isn't documented somewhere, my memory of it is to declare it deprecated in 1.15.0 and remove it in 1.16.0) and replace it with something more modern. The python based script has not been part of any release so if we can make a quick decision to remove it, maybe we can do that before rolling the next RC. I doubt anyone is using the script and I agree in principle with Evgeny's arguments above. If we decide to remove the Python script, we should revisit the decision about nominate.pl - I think it should still be removed. Cheers, Daniel
