@nh2, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @domenkozar, @vcunat and @edef1c to be potential reviewers.

What should be done before opening a PR is in the contributing guidelines (which refer mostly to the Nixpkgs manual). The PR template contains additional information that can't be seen in the content of the PR. Because whether docs are present or not can easily be seen, I don't think this should be included in the template. Instead, it should go in the contributing guidelines (and thus possibly Nixpkgs manual).

I agree, but having a final-moment-checkbox will be good I think. I've seen people worried they can't tick the macos box b/c they don't have it -- they see the tickmarks as obligations. I'll merge this today if nobody replies.

I agree, but having a final-moment-checkbox will be good I think.

Yes, it can be useful but we cannot have check-boxes for everything. As soon as you start with this, more will follow. See also #27522 (comment).

I've seen people worried they can't tick the macos box b/c they don't have it -- they see the tickmarks as obligations.

Then we should clarify that. But that's irrelevant to this PR.

Then we should clarify that.

I've pushed 138eba0 to clarify what the check-boxes are for.

On second thought I think it can be relevant if stated somewhat differently. Looking at a diff one cannot tell if there is any existing documentation that need to be updated. Therefore, asking whether they

• Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date.

is useful from a reviewer point of view.

Furthermore, I think a mention about documentation should be made in the manual. There is nothing about documentation in https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#chap-submitting-changes.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking now ... :)

You're not.

I believe you're right that emphasis on amending and writing proper documentation should be added to the submitting changes manual.

That is, anything requiring release notes to add release notes; anything else affecting the truthfulness of existing documentation.

Though, it shouldn't block updating and merging this PR.

Do we think the re-phrased checkbox is fine? The clarification from 138eba0 has meanwhile been removed anew; but the way @FRidh phrased the box makes it checkable even when there's nothing to write.

👍 to either move this forward or close this PR if deemed irrelevant.

[ ] Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date.

I like this wording. I've updated the PR accordingly.