Add one label to generate release notes

[utam0k]

Make the heaviest of release tasks, the generation of release notes, much easier.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #2122 (32e1d71) into main (09b3665) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2122      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.82%   64.81%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         129      129              
  Lines       14768    14769       +1     
==========================================
  Hits         9573     9573              
- Misses       5195     5196       +1     

[YJDoc2]

lgtm ❇️ This is amazing!

[YJDoc2]

We should also add the auto-merge PR workflow to add label dependabot on the PRs, else their workflow will fail

[yihuaf]

Is there a tag or a way to exclude small fixes and trivial changes? Or we should lump these under the other section?

[YJDoc2]

Maybe having a kind/miscellaneous would be a good way to collect those miscellaneous changes?

[utam0k]

I thought about kind/misc too. But this time I decided not to. I thought about it but decided not to do it this time because relying on it would eventually burden the release notes.
Perhaps something similar might be added in the future, but I didn't think it was necessary to include it from the beginning. What do you think?

[YJDoc2]

I think the way that is there currently in PR for grouping from labels is fine, I was thinking to add kind/misc as a catchall for label checking CI. Think of it as chore-type of commits where we update CI or fix typos and so on. For them, currently the most applicable label is cleanup, but it doesn't seem correct. So if we allow kind/misc in PR checking CI, that will allow it to pass ; but we still count those in the 'other' section which is the catch-all for generating release notes.

[utam0k]

@YJDoc2 I think this case you said works fine using kind/cleanup following Kubernetes.
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/labels?q=kind%2F
kubernetes/kubernetes#118186

[utam0k]

I think misc is a meaningless label that categorizes nothing. Then I think we should allow no labels.

[YJDoc2]

@YJDoc2 I think this case you said works fine using kind/cleanup following Kubernetes.

I think misc is a meaningless label that categorizes nothing. Then I think we should allow no labels.

Now I'm not sure either. In the end it is our call , so we can use cleanup for the typos and minor fixes as k8s does ; or we can allow a PR to be without label. I think just for the sake of having all important PRs in the release notes and not missing them due to missing label ; as well as for reducing the task of manual writing of release notes ; I'll suggest we go ahead for now with the cleanup label approach, and if it has any difficulties in future, we can come back and re-discuss . wdyt @yihuaf ?

[utam0k]

@YJDoc2 Thanks for your understanding.

[utam0k]

Once, I will merge this PR, but I welcome your feedback.

[yihuaf]

cleanup is fine with me.