Right now, the test workflow checks for each PR whether it has a change in the changes directory. If not, the PR fails.
The way to deal with that for changes that do not need to have a visible change log entry (e.g. because they fix something for a prior PR in the same version that had a change log entry, or because the change is too internal to be relevant for users) is to have a dummy change fragment file named <issue>.notshown.rst or <issue>.notshown.<sequencenumber>.rst that will not be shown in the final change log.
I have done that now a few times and find it too heavy as a requirement, and suggest to drop that requirement again by simply not checking for change fragments.
Discussion result: Drop the notshown files and support (in the template), and instead introduce a label e.g. "notshown" (name TBD) that controls whether the check in the test workflow is performed.
Right now, the test workflow checks for each PR whether it has a change in the changes directory. If not, the PR fails.
The way to deal with that for changes that do not need to have a visible change log entry (e.g. because they fix something for a prior PR in the same version that had a change log entry, or because the change is too internal to be relevant for users) is to have a dummy change fragment file named
<issue>.notshown.rst
or<issue>.notshown.<sequencenumber>.rst
that will not be shown in the final change log.I have done that now a few times and find it too heavy as a requirement, and suggest to drop that requirement again by simply not checking for change fragments.
DISCUSSION NEEDED