Release notes CI step

[vzarytovskii]

Ok, let's make everyone's life miserable and require to fill in release notes every time Compiler, FSharp.Core, LanguageFeatures or VS are changed.

Will help us to generate proper release notes though.

[nojaf]

Can you please add some guidance on what we are expected to write?
Are we following KeepAChangelog or anything similar?
What is the expected format for a changelog entry?

[vzarytovskii]

Can you please add some guidance on what we are expected to write?

Are we following KeepAChangelog or anything similar?

What is the expected format for a changelog entry?

Bot will post a comment with instructions once I sort out auth.

[nojaf]

Bot will post a comment with instructions once I sort out auth.

Hmm, that sounds a bit counterproductive that I would first need to raise the PR, only for a bot to yell at me.

Can the guidance not written in documentation? If I know I need to do this anyway, a clear how-to page will get the job done right?

Also, will the bot validate the entries? Will an entry without a PR link be pointed out for example?

[T-Gro]

Bot will post a comment with instructions once I sort out auth.

Hmm, that sounds a bit counterproductive that I would first need to raise the PR, only for a bot to yell at me.

Can the guidance not written in documentation? If I know I need to do this anyway, a clear how-to page will get the job done right?

Also, will the bot validate the entries? Will an entry without a PR link be pointed out for example?

There might a circular dependency - we want to have the PR link in there, but before raising the PR, you will not know what the URL is.

As for the content I would like to see:
Write it for the humans who will read it (this will differ across the different changelog files).

• FCS only changes - for FCS API users, so especially tooling authors
• Language changes - write it in a way to explain the language feature to a normal F# user, ideally including motivation and code samples. This can of course reference an existing RFC, does not have to be rewritten.
• ...

[vzarytovskii]

Bot will post a comment with instructions once I sort out auth.

Hmm, that sounds a bit counterproductive that I would first need to raise the PR, only for a bot to yell at me.

Can the guidance not written in documentation? If I know I need to do this anyway, a clear how-to page will get the job done right?

It will also be in the PR temple as a footer. And optionally in separate document.

Also, will the bot validate the entries? Will an entry without a PR link be pointed out for example?

That's the plan. One issue with that though - if we gonna check exact PR url, it will always fail on first run, since PR will not be created and its number is not known.

But first I need to sort out authorization.

[smoothdeveloper]

There might a circular dependency

Not to distract from release note process (amazing!), but can we sort out the circular dependency with:

• approved suggestion
• creating a RFC with the ID with merged place holder file in the lang-design repo
• creating a discussion with links to suggestion, RFC and place holder or link to PR that points to the RFC
• asking the author of suggestion to put links to RFC, discussion and PR (this should be under a certain consistent layout, at the top of the suggestion top post, otherwise people may not head there
• closing the suggestion thread with a link to the RFC discussion one

This is a bit of a tedious.

Regarding this Release note PR:

let's make everyone's life miserable and

When I look at the pipeline, and why / how it is done, I'll not feel miserable filling the release notes for my contributions, this is amazing effort :)

[vzarytovskii]

Alright, we have a chicken-egg situation here. YAML file should be in main in order to apply correct permissions. But to get it to main we need to make sure it works as we want it to, so what I'm proposing is to see if everything works fine here: vzarytovskii#7 and if it is, I will force merge it and we'll make a test PR to test it "properly"

Couple of things missing:

1. PR template
2. Way to opt-out from the release notes (thinking via adding a tag, in this case bot will add a comment that release notes were skipped).

cc @nojaf

[vzarytovskii]

Have link checker working. Will continue with opt-out things and PR template later.

[0101]

Can we just add it as optional in the beginning for testing purposes?

[vzarytovskii]

@dotnet/fsharp-team-msft This needs to be merged in order for it to work (I can disable it in UI in case of any failures).

[vzarytovskii]

I also made an opt-out by just using tag, so even if something is failing, adding tag should only re-run this singular check.

[vzarytovskii]

/run fantomas

[github-actions]

Ran fantomas: https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/actions/runs/6931956095

[vzarytovskii]

I intend to merge it to main for it to be part of CI. There's an easy way to opt-out as well as relaxed rules for the format for now.

I think it should "go live" so we understand what's working and what's not.

[vzarytovskii]

Alright, since there are no objections...