Bug#899085: release.debian.org: excuses terminology: replace "Valid Candidate" with "Trying to migrate"?

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

Paul Wise:
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> 
>> """
>> Migration status: OK: Will attempt migration (Any information below is
>> purely informational)
>> """
> 
> I'd remove the "OK:" from that unless there is a reason for it?
> 

The current list of messages that can appear after "Migration status:" are:

> VERDICT2DESC = {
>     PolicyVerdict.PASS:
>         'OK: Will attempt migration (Any information below is purely informational)',
>     PolicyVerdict.PASS_HINTED:
>         'OK: Will attempt migration due to a hint (Any information below is purely informational)',
>     PolicyVerdict.REJECTED_TEMPORARILY:
>         'WAITING: Waiting for test results, another package or too young (no action required now - check later)',
>     PolicyVerdict.REJECTED_WAITING_FOR_ANOTHER_ITEM:
>         'WAITING: Waiting for another item to be ready to migrate (no action required now - check later)',
>     PolicyVerdict.REJECTED_BLOCKED_BY_ANOTHER_ITEM:
>         'BLOCKED: Cannot migrate due to another item, which is blocked (please check which dependencies are stuck)',
>     PolicyVerdict.REJECTED_NEEDS_APPROVAL:
>         'BLOCKED: Needs an approval (either due to a freeze, the source suite or a manual hint)',
>     PolicyVerdict.REJECTED_CANNOT_DETERMINE_IF_PERMANENT:
>         'BLOCKED: Maybe temporary, maybe blocked but Britney is missing information (check below or the buildds)',
>     PolicyVerdict.REJECTED_PERMANENTLY:
>         'BLOCKED: Rejected/introduces a regression (please see below)'
> }

When I wrote the messages, I wanted to quickly high light the three
basic states ("OK", "WAITING" or "BLOCKED"/rejected).  The first two
states implies that the contributor does not need to do anything at the
moment, where as the letter implies that the some human intervention is
needed.

>> So changing the wording to the proposed will simply make it redundant
>> with the first line.  Perhaps we should simply remove that line now?
> 
> That seems reasonable to me.
> 

Ok, will look at that when we have talked about the part above.

Thanks,
~Niels