Clarify options in case special-HW is needed

[cpaelzer]

This tries to distill the discussions we had in person, in IRC and on the GH issue into a non-epic-length version that we can use in the templates used by the reporter as well as the reviewer of a main inclusion request.

Fixes: #30

[github-actions[bot]]

@check-spelling-bot Report

:red_circle: Please review

See the :open_file_folder: files view or the :scroll:action log for details.

Unrecognized words (2)

MAAS testflinger

To accept :heavy_check_mark: these unrecognized words as correct, run the following commands

... in a clone of the [git@github.com:cpaelzer/ubuntu-mir.git](https://github.com/cpaelzer/ubuntu-mir.git) repository on the `relax-hw-testing-requirements-a-bit` branch ([:information_source: how do I use this?]( https://github.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/wiki/Accepting-Suggestions)): ``` sh curl -s -S -L 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/check-spelling/main/apply.pl' | perl - 'https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/actions/runs/5474526607/attempts/1' ```

Available :books: dictionaries could cover words not in the :blue_book: dictionary

This includes both **expected items** (10) from .github/actions/spelling/expect.txt and **unrecognized words** (2) Dictionary | Entries | Covers -|-|- [cspell:cpp/src/cpp.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/cpp/src/cpp.txt)|30216|3| [cspell:win32/src/win32.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/win32/src/win32.txt)|53509|2| [cspell:cpp/src/stdlib-c.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/cpp/src/stdlib-c.txt)|290|2| [cspell:ruby/ruby.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/ruby/ruby.txt)|278|1| [cspell:r/src/r.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/r/src/r.txt)|808|1| [cspell:python/src/python/python-lib.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/python/src/python/python-lib.txt)|3873|1| [cspell:php/php.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/php/php.txt)|2597|1| [cspell:fullstack/fullstack.txt](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/check-spelling/cspell-dicts/v20220816/dictionaries/fullstack/fullstack.txt)|390|1| Consider adding them using (in `.github/workflows/spelling.yml`): ``` yml with: extra_dictionaries: cspell:cpp/src/cpp.txt cspell:win32/src/win32.txt cspell:cpp/src/stdlib-c.txt cspell:ruby/ruby.txt cspell:r/src/r.txt cspell:python/src/python/python-lib.txt cspell:php/php.txt cspell:fullstack/fullstack.txt ``` To stop checking additional dictionaries, add: ``` yml with: check_extra_dictionaries: '' ```

:pencil2: Contributor please read this

By default the suggested command will add the listed items to the .github/actions/spelling/expect.txt. This is not always desired! If a listed items is * ... **misspelled**, then please *correct* them instead of changing the spell checker configuration. * ... an *actual* word/term that has a high probability of showing up in future contributions, please add it to [`.github/actions/spelling/allow`](https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/tree/main/.github/actions/spelling/allow). * ... an term/word that just you use or shouldn't generally be accepted, please add it to [`.github/actions/spelling/expect.txt`](https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/tree/main/.github/actions/spelling/expect.txt). See the `README.md` in each directory for more information. :microscope: You can test your commits **without** *appending* to a PR by creating a new branch with that extra change and pushing it to your fork. The [check-spelling](https://github.com/marketplace/actions/check-spelling) action will run in response to your **push** – it doesn't require an open pull request. By using such a branch, you can limit the number of typos your peers see you make. :wink:

[cpaelzer]

I would be interested to see where we stand in the long term, hoping that not 80% of requests falls in the "TODO-X" because of lack of resources, but I would be happy to be convinced otherwise :)

In that regard I think we can only know that once we tried. And one thing that I learned management-wise is that sometimes it has to be:

1. a) correctly forecasting a grim future -> nothing happens
2. b) correctly assessing a grim today due to now present evidence (in many MIR bugs selecting TODO-X) -> actions to resolve finally happen

So as long as we do not make it too easy to use it as a bypass again I think we should be fine.

[cpaelzer]

Approved all related by Directors at the sprint, minimal changes added as it was requested to also document likely regressions. Ready for merge on the next team meeting.