Custom Pull Request body about action

[chaitanyadeorukhkar]

I should have explained my use-case 😄

We are using this for projects that are not npm-publishable packages (web & mobile apps). We really like the philosophy and process of creating changesets and want to use it without the need to publish it at the end. This is why I'd like to skip having the explanation of publishing in the PR body that might confuse someone who looks at the version update PR.

My version update PR could have a body like this

This is an automated version update PR 🚀
Merge this whenever you are ready to cut a release for the app. New changes made to the master branch will continue to get added in the changelog included in this PR.

Followed by the changelog of single/multiple packages.

[alex-page]

@Andarist our team would love to add a checklist to the pull request before folks hit merge. To make sure that thorough testing has happened. Is this something that would want to warrant this change?

Is the complication due to the release content reading from the merged PR content? Could this be decoupled into prefix instead of body and then removed from the release documentation?

This PR was opened by the Changesets release GitHub action. When you're ready to do a release, you can merge this and the packages will be published to npm automatically. If you're not ready to do a release yet, that's fine, whenever you add more changesets to main, this PR will be updated.

🛑 Before shipping

• I have tested this NPM package in our documentation website
• I have tested this NPM package in our product
• ...

Releases

@shopify/[email protected]

Minor Changes

• #5962 3a64ee7e3 Thanks @alex-page! - Updated @rollup/pluginutils to v4.1.0

[Andarist]

Question is - how would you like to customize it?

[Andarist]

Hmm, I understand that the context of your project is a little bit different but even the PR body that you have given mentions something being published. Is this that big a problem that a publish process looks a little bit different than the one for npm? It's still there and I wouldn't think that the existing message would confuse anyone. Don't take me wrong - I'm not super opposed to allowing to configure it (although it would complicate a bunch of stuff), just bike-shedding a little bit before taking a final decision.