do we really want the documentation checks to be required as opposed to be recommended? this PR would have failed that check

You can actually move everything from the groups - it's pretty quick.
I just think that in the end, the maintainers and release managers need to discuss what they want to have there or whether they want to have it at all.

For me, they don't necessarily have to be mandatory, but on the other hand, why not?

They are often overlooked, as I have also done again. :) And as an RM, I found it really annoying to always have to chase people up.

Tested without completing anyth8ng to see if it worked with post submissi9n checkbox marking without opening for editing. Worked ok the first time but not the second see LadySolveig#11

Yes, that is definitely a restriction. It needs a trigger, which in this case is edited, and unfortunately it seems that only the checkbox (without opening edit and save) alone does not trigger it.
That's why I added “How it works.”

My ideal scenario was actually automatically set to “Draft” status

Then the triggers would have been much better too. Since I can only ever exit the draft with ready_to_review and have to actively click the button. Unfortunately, this requires a PAT_TOKEN (which would then be linked to a person) and the normal workflow token is not sufficient for this.

It does work (to my suprise) but not reliably. I think it's a timing issue. The first pr I checked all three. The second pr I checked just the ai. Waited for the updated template and then checked the two document links. But this time the bot only recognised one of the checks leaving a comment that the doc link was still required to be checked when it had been

Are you sure it's good to remove the advisory texts when the mandatory tests are completed. I think I would still like to see users heavily encouraged to complete those especially test instructions

We have discussed this PR in the maintainers meeting and think it is a good idea.

It might make sense to combine it with PR #47262 into one, so we have only one comment in the PRs about the next steps and the findings from here.

The goal should be to annoy users as little as possible, not having many comments or comments with very long texts.

I will have a deeper look into it on weekend and then discuss again with other maintainers if necessary and finally make suggestions.

You have the code, do with it what you want. I'm sorry that a comment has already caused soo much work, that I have to ask for it several times.

And if you really think I haven't thought that far ahead, little noise as possible. Comments will be replaced instead of just adding new ones. And completely deleted when everything has been resolved. It will also only be commented on if a mandatory field is violated.
Enjoy!

And if you really think I haven't thought that far ahead, little noise as possible.

@LadySolveig Nobody has said you haven’t thought far ahead. I was pointed out to have a deeper look on it, and I don’t have time for that before the weekend because my daily work keeps me busy so I’m tired in the evenings. And I want to be awake when checking your PR. If it turns out that the PR is fine as it is, then great. But you hopefully understand that we want to check it before we merge.

Anyway, thanks for your work, I am optimistic we will use it.

@richard67 This is purely a maintenance task that is independent of the release. I really appreciate your message.

However, as you rightly say, you are not the only maintainer.
This is not about whether my work is good or bad, or whether it can be accepted as is.

But if the first sentence is that "we already discussed this in the previous meeting" and I still have to ask several times for any maintainer to leave a short comment here, that is a clear sign that you are too self-centered, fussing too much about PRs instead of simply working together with the contributors.

So this is not an offense against anyone personally, I am just finally setting my personal boundaries here.