Improve the beta_uplift wording to highlight wontfix is a valid option

bugbot/rules/uplift_beta.py

@@ -8,6 +8,17 @@
 from bugbot import utils
 from bugbot.bzcleaner import BzCleaner
 
+# This phrase is posted in every needinfo comment (injected into the template
+# via `get_extra_for_needinfo_template`) AND used as the re-nag guard in
+# `get_bz_params`. Both uses reference this single constant so they can never
+# drift out of sync.
+COMMENT_MARKER = "please make an uplift decision for"
+
+# The marker used by the previous wording. Bugzilla comments are immutable, so
+# bugs nagged before the rewording carry only this one: keep filtering on it
+# too, otherwise they would all be nagged a second time.
+LEGACY_COMMENT_MARKER = ", is this bug important enough to require an uplift?"
+
 
 class UpliftBeta(BzCleaner):
     def __init__(self):
@@ -27,7 +38,10 @@ def __init__(self):
         self.status_esr = utils.get_flag(self.esr, "status", "esr")
 
         # Bugs will be added to `extra_ni` later after being fetched
-        self.extra_ni = {"status_beta": f"status-firefox{self.beta}"}
+        self.extra_ni = {
+            "status_beta": f"status-firefox{self.beta}",
+            "question": COMMENT_MARKER,
+        }
 
     def description(self):
         return "Bugs fixed in nightly but still affecting beta"
@@ -134,8 +148,12 @@ def get_bz_params(self, date):
             "n5": 1,
             "f5": "longdesc",
             "o5": "casesubstring",
-            # this a part of the comment we've in templates/uplift_beta_needinfo.txt
-            "v5": ", is this bug important enough to require an uplift?",
+            "v5": COMMENT_MARKER,
+            # Same, for bugs nagged with the previous wording
+            "n8": 1,
+            "f8": "longdesc",
+            "o8": "casesubstring",
+            "v8": LEGACY_COMMENT_MARKER,
             # Check if have at least one attachment which is a Phabricator request
             "f6": "attachments.mimetype",
             "o6": "anyexact",

templates/uplift_beta_needinfo.txt

@@ -1,7 +1,16 @@
 The patch landed in nightly and beta is affected{% if extra[bugid]["esr_affected"] %}, along with ESR{% endif %}.
-:{{ nickname }}, is this bug important enough to require an uplift?
-- If yes, please nominate the patch for {% if extra[bugid]["esr_affected"] %}beta and ESR approvals{% else %}beta approval{% endif %}.{% if extra[bugid]["regression"] %} Also, don't forget to request an uplift for the patches in the {{ plural('regression', extra[bugid]["regression"]) }} caused by this fix.{% endif %}
-  - See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Requesting_an_Uplift for documentation on how to request an uplift.
-- If no, please set {% if extra[bugid]["esr_affected"] %}`{{ extra["status_beta"] }}` and the ESR status flag(s){% else %}`{{ extra["status_beta"] }}`{% endif %} to `wontfix`.
+
+:{{ nickname }}, {{ extra["question"] }} {% if extra[bugid]["esr_affected"] %}each affected release{% else %}beta{% endif %}:
+{% if extra[bugid]["esr_affected"] -%}
+- For **beta**, nominate the patch for beta uplift approval if the fix should be included in this release, or set `{{ extra["status_beta"] }}` to `wontfix` if the fix can wait for the next release.
+- For **ESR**, nominate the patch for the appropriate ESR uplift approval if the fix should be included in ESR, or set the ESR status flag(s) to `wontfix` if an uplift isn't needed. Each affected ESR release needs a decision.
+{%- else -%}
+- Nominate the patch for beta uplift approval if the fix should be included in this release, or
+- Set `{{ extra["status_beta"] }}` to `wontfix` if the fix can wait for the next release.
+{%- endif %}
+{% if extra[bugid]["regression"] %}
+Don't forget to request an uplift for the patches in the {{ extra[bugid]["regression"] }} {{ plural('regression', extra[bugid]["regression"]) }} caused by this fix.
+{% endif %}
+See [Requesting an Uplift](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Release_Management/Requesting_an_Uplift) for documentation on how to request an uplift.
 
 {{ documentation }}