)]}'
{"reno/loader.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":2472,"name":"Doug Hellmann","email":"dhellmann@redhat.com","username":"doug-hellmann"},"change_message_id":"3e18b20a1b7a6e4fac2eded708f83ce6a6eb211e","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":137,"context_line":"                    )"},{"line_number":138,"context_line":"            else:"},{"line_number":139,"context_line":"                if section_name not in dict(self._config.sections):"},{"line_number":140,"context_line":"                    LOG.warning("},{"line_number":141,"context_line":"                        \u0027The %s section of %s is not a recognized section. \u0027"},{"line_number":142,"context_line":"                        \u0027It should be one of: %s\u0027,"},{"line_number":143,"context_line":"                        section_name, filename,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"bd66d067_7147e248","line":140,"updated":"2021-07-09 12:32:12.000000000","message":"Perhaps this should also be an exception, as with the earlier patch?\n\nIn fact, both changes are likely to break builds if folks already have bad data. I wonder if we want an option to let them disable the checks as a quick way to fix builds. Or are the dependencies for doc builds managed in such a way that reno can be pinned separately in different repos?","commit_id":"e9525543935b2d572c99eb056826f99e3de524c4"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"3f979cfdd6681dc59e3bdda9033c3c8f861e9aaf","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":137,"context_line":"                    )"},{"line_number":138,"context_line":"            else:"},{"line_number":139,"context_line":"                if section_name not in dict(self._config.sections):"},{"line_number":140,"context_line":"                    LOG.warning("},{"line_number":141,"context_line":"                        \u0027The %s section of %s is not a recognized section. \u0027"},{"line_number":142,"context_line":"                        \u0027It should be one of: %s\u0027,"},{"line_number":143,"context_line":"                        section_name, filename,"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"8195e2f0_371b7ad8","line":140,"in_reply_to":"bd66d067_7147e248","updated":"2021-07-12 14:26:06.000000000","message":"\u003e Perhaps this should also be an exception, as with the earlier patch?\n\nGood point. This will result in unused data which has the same end result as the unusable data seen in the earlier patch. With that said...\n\n\u003e In fact, both changes are likely to break builds if folks already have bad data. I wonder if we want an option to let them disable the checks as a quick way to fix builds. Or are the dependencies for doc builds managed in such a way that reno can be pinned separately in different repos?\n\nPersonally, I think this is a reasonable thing to break on over the long term. There\u0027s a good chance that users didn\u0027t spot the mistake until now and will want to correct things. However, we don\u0027t want to be user hostile so perhaps we could log a warning for now and only raise an exception in a later release. It\u0027s very easy to disable Sphinx\u0027s warnings-as-error feature if people wanted a temporary workaround. Certainly, it\u0027s no more difficult than adding a new flag that we\u0027d only end up removing in the future, assuming this isn\u0027t behavior we\u0027d want to continue supporting long-term.","commit_id":"e9525543935b2d572c99eb056826f99e3de524c4"}]}