-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
prow: dev-release-note functionality #5843
Comments
If we're allowing `NONE` what purpose does the regex serve? Why not just put it in the PR template for all PRs?
…On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, 09:14 James Munnelly ***@***.***> wrote:
sig-api-machinery are trying to improve the developer experience when
building Kubernetes. We currently have a list of >100 PRs that do not
specify release notes as they are solely developer facing changes, however
this has caused many problems resulting in end users needing to look
through recently merged PRs in order to work out how to fix their own code.
Ideally, there'd be some way for users to specify a 'developer' release
note when writing PRs. After some discussion, @sttts
<https://github.com/sttts> suggested something along the lines of a new
dev-release-note tag that is *optional* for all PRs (in order to not
require all users to specify a dev-release-note on existing PRs).
Ideally we'd then have some kind of regex that matches directories, and
enforces a dev-release-note for PRs that touch files matching the regex.
It'd be possible to specify NONE just like with release-note still (for
cases where it does not make sense to include a dev-release-note).
Is this something that can be considered to be included in Prow, and have
sig-testing got any thoughts on how this might/should look?
/cc @sttts <https://github.com/sttts> @nikhita
<https://github.com/nikhita> @BenTheElder <https://github.com/bentheelder>
@fejta <https://github.com/fejta> @spiffxp <https://github.com/spiffxp>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5843>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA4Bq-JSL-hQiPkxa932n0gY8MkAn1iDks5s9stdgaJpZM4Q4RxX>
.
|
Sure - I didn't want to be too intrusive to the existing process is all (we end out with something that looks like this comment everywhere) Release note:
Developer release note:
|
/cc @cblecker @grodrigues3 @kubernetes/sig-contributor-experience-feature-requests |
A couple questions:
|
This.
In every release of Kubernetes which has a matching release of our published libraries, e.g. client-go, apimachinery, etc. We would put the release into the Github release/tag markdown. |
also FYI @cjwagner since this would touch on Tide / Prow I think this is certainly possible, but before implementing we should have a specific proposal and loop in ContribEx, when you say enforcing do you mean not allowing merge without a value? If so we should probably just add it to all PRs and handle it the same as the existing release note process. |
Based on @sttts's answers, I'd suggest this would be more a topic for @kubernetes/sig-release-feature-requests then for contribex. I would also suggest that perhaps there is a way to flag a release note in the text as being applicable to devs (similar to action required), and use the same release note system we already have. |
/cc @caesarxuchao |
cc @roycaihw who wrote a doc for similar ideas: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AlcDeTlX7JOLkC7DEVtT9LRZ8N1bK1hrp8LRuep5joQ/edit#heading=h.5irk4csrpu0y |
@caesarxuchao @roycaihw awesome document. Fits perfectly here. |
@caesarxuchao @sttts that looks pretty good to me, I think the problem is that this requires prow jobs to have GitHub API access. Possibly we could do this the way @fejta-bot works, which is to just comment on the PR with |
Where is the current release-note logic? Can't we re-use that code? |
It's in prow/plugins/releasenote, but it's not a prow job and I don't think it inspects the file contents so the above doc wouldn't quite match up. It would certainly be more straight forward to do a prow plugin / extend the releasenote plugin but the sticking point would probably be needing to grep godeps. I'm pretty sure the existing logic doesn't even inspect the file names in the PR @cjwagner . |
got it. |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
/remove-lifecycle stale
If we were to get this in, what should be the next step? Talk to sig-release and sig-contribex? |
An aside: I think now something like this would be a good target for an external plugin. |
Reviving this again:
|
I'm happy to work on the automation bits for this if proper guidelines are first agreed upon. :) Right now, we go through all PRs created against I just created the spreadsheet for release-8 for client-go. It has 201 PRs! 😱 |
Hi yes, talking to contribex and release about how this should work would be good. I should have commented the first time instead of +1ing 🙃 |
👍 🙂 |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
/remove-lifecycle rotten |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity. Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
@fejta-bot: Closing this issue. In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
sig-api-machinery are trying to improve the developer experience when building Kubernetes. We currently have a list of >100 PRs that do not specify release notes as they are solely developer facing changes, however this has caused many problems resulting in end users needing to look through recently merged PRs in order to work out how to fix their own code.
Ideally, there'd be some way for users to specify a 'developer' release note when writing PRs. After some discussion, @sttts suggested something along the lines of a new
dev-release-note
tag that is optional for all PRs (in order to not require all users to specify a dev-release-note on existing PRs).Ideally we'd then have some kind of regex that matches directories, and enforces a dev-release-note for PRs that touch files matching the regex. It'd be possible to specify
NONE
just like with release-note still (for cases where it does not make sense to include a dev-release-note).Is this something that can be considered to be included in Prow, and have sig-testing got any thoughts on how this might/should look?
/cc @sttts @nikhita @BenTheElder @fejta @spiffxp
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: