Re: svn commit: r1936137 - subversion/branches/1.15.x

On 15. 7. 2026 14:35, Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote:
> 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've never used nominate-backport.py and hardly ever the older 
nominate.pl. I find it a waste of time to have to learn the quirks and 
bespoke command line of those scripts, just to add some lines of text or 
even just a +1 to a file. A simple nomination syntax checker would be 
useful – I sometimes get the indentation wrong – but a script to 
automate editing feels like overkill.

-- Brane