[CI] update crdify CI to allow exempt/ack break change.

[zetxqx]

What type of PR is this?

What this PR does / why we need it:

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

Allow API breaking change by adding /ack-breaking-changes

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for gateway-api-inference-extension ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c565c7f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/gateway-api-inference-extension/deploys/69279d075b832c000852cae1
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1909--gateway-api-inference-extension.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: zetxqx
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign nirrozenbaum for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[zetxqx]

/assign @kfswain @ahg-g @nirrozenbaum

I would like to add a label ack-breaking-changes to bypass the Crd verify check.

This will unblock #1820. Can you take a look?

tested(zetxqx#8) on my personal project: I believe only maintainers can add the label.

[nirrozenbaum]

I’ve looked into #1820.
I’m a bit concerned about the current PR.
my main concern is that we have validation and now we add automation to bypass validation.

I think validation might be bypassed in some edge cases that are very specific. as maintainers (with admin permission), we can merge the original PR manually.

I believe merging manually to bypass makes it very unusual and will cause maintainers to think twice before doing so. on the other hand, having automated bypassing process concerns me much more.

[nirrozenbaum]

/hold

@zetxqx may we close this one now that #1820 is merged?

[kfswain]

I’ve looked into #1820.

I’m a bit concerned about the current PR.

my main concern is that we have validation and now we add automation to bypass validation.

I think validation might be bypassed in some edge cases that are very specific. as maintainers (with admin permission), we can merge the original PR manually.

I believe merging manually to bypass makes it very unusual and will cause maintainers to think twice before doing so. on the other hand, having automated bypassing process concerns me much more.

Agree with @nirrozenbaum completely