MRE cards for pinot

[Bryce Harrington]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 04:28:15PM -0300, Lucas Kanashiro wrote:
> > I've generated these with a default description that loosely follows the
> > SRU template for convenience, but of course feel free to erase and redo
> > all that.  Same with the title - I know each of us has some conventions
> > in how we do our MREs, don't feel you have to change your conventions
> > just change the bug title as you wish.
> >
> 
> Maybe it would be more work than just updating the bugs manually but would
> it be possible to have a bug description template for each MRE? Where we
> can fill the bug description appropriately for each package (set of
> packages). For most MREs we have a template of those bug descriptions in
> the exception itself, and we could use them to create the bug with the
> "almost correct" content.

Yes, in fact the script that generates the descriptions, 'pkg-updates',
does support templates, however it's a bit mis-designed.

Originally, we had different kinds of cards for OCI updates, Snap
updates, a couple PPAs, and a small number of MREs.  So the script
treats each of those as its own data archetype.  But now all those went
away except for the backport PPA, and the number of MRE tasks has
increased substantially.

Anyway, the consequence is that there's just one template for MRE cards,
but clearly MREs are going to more granularity... and an easier way to
update the templates.  Currently they're just hardcoded in the script
but I'm thinking it may make more sense to break those out as template
files in the git repo.  I need to put a bit more thought into how this
should evolve, though.  Lemme know if you have further ideas on what
functionality you'd like to see.  Meanwhile, I'll stick it on the todo
list for the n-series board prep work.

Bryce