1.12 Release Notes Draft #214
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/M
|
additional labels to consider, that are sometimes present: both of the below generally mean an API change or new API, and are likely to be present in addition to other kind/ labels: Also, the kind/cleanup (or kind/refactor) label is occasionally present for PRs demanding a release note; do we want to do anything special with that? |
|
Maybe |
|
I added a "New Features" and "API Changes" section but there are none of those so far in 1.12. To get a good feel for what this would look like at the end of a release, take a look at this rendering of the 1.11 release notes. Ideally "Other Notable Changes" wouldn't have many notes in it and many of these notes are in-fact associated with a SIG, but are just not labeled as such. Fortunately we can go label those PRs post-merge and re-render the release notes to get them sorted, but ideally we could require there is some categorization label applied to PRs which have a release note (ie: some |
|
I ran some experiments and from 1.10.0 to 1.11.0, the only PRs with release notes that didn't specify a SIG but did specify a kind label other than (and not including) one that would already categorize them (bug, feature, api-change, new-api) are:
So I think sig label and then kind/bug, kind/feature, kind/new-api, and kind/api-change make for a pretty comprehensive set of what is labeled at all. Past that, we can just generate the notes, see what's not labeled, go label it, and regenerate the notes. |
marpaia
force-pushed
the
1.12-release-notes-draft
branch
from
90f7966 to
6e89b08
Compare
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
Can I LGTM my own PR? /lgtm |
|
@marpaia: you cannot LGTM your own PR. 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. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/L
|
OK, I really like what we've got here. One change that I think we need, though, is that "action required" items shouldn't also appear in the sig sections. Other than that, I think this is ready for us to move forward. |
marpaia
changed the title
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: calebamiles, marpaia The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
assuming we can consolidate the action required after this PR merges |
|
@calebamiles what do you mean? do you want the Action Required section subcategorized by SIG or anything in particular? |
I generated these notes using the
release-notestool that I'm working on in kubernetes/release#575. I would like to just continuously re-render these notes until it comes time to give them to the individual SIGs as the release burns down. So if there are any edits that we'd like to structurally incorporate into this document, let's encode it in the code so that we can keep re-applying the same patterns for notes sorting (if possible).For each note, we have the following information available to use for document organization decision making:
kind/bug,release-note-action-required,sig-node, etc)Right now, I'm using all the SIG labels I can find to pre-sort and then using the
kind/bugandrelease-note-action-requiredlabel to add the "Bug Fixes" and "Action Required" sections respectively. Everything that doesn't have a SIG label or one of those two labels goes into "Other Notable Changes"./assign @nickchase