Add kind/regression label to the pull request template and group them in an HTML comment

[saschagrunert]

What type of PR is this?

/kind documentation

What this PR does / why we need it:

We now add the kind/regression to the PR template. We also put the kinds
into an HTML comment, because prow is now able to ignore those entries.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

None

Special notes for your reviewer:

cc @justaugustus @liggitt

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

None

Additional documentation e.g., KEPs (Kubernetes Enhancement Proposals), usage docs, etc.:

None

[saschagrunert]

/test pull-kubernetes-conformance-kind-ga-only-parallel

[justaugustus]

/lgtm
/approve
/assign @liggitt @castrojo @cblecker

[nikhita]

Thanks @saschagrunert :)

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: justaugustus, nikhita, saschagrunert

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:

• .github/OWNERS [nikhita]

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

[liggitt]

/hold

As was discussed in the PR introducing this label, I think we'd probably consider regressions to also be bugs, and would want them labeled as such. Adding this label here alongside an "uncomment only one" instruction is confusing.

I'd also like to see more information provided when labeling issues as regressions, specifically:

• reproducer steps against a specific prior release that demonstrated different behavior

[saschagrunert]

Okay, how would we like to handle it in prow? Do we want to add kind/bug and kind/regression if the contributors specifies /kind regression?

[liggitt]

I would probably group the labels like this:

<!--
Add one of the following kinds:
/kind bug
/kind cleanup
/kind documentation
/kind feature

Optionally add one or more of the following kinds if applicable:
/kind api-change
/kind deprecation
/kind failing-test
/kind flake
/kind regression
-->

[saschagrunert]

Yes I can change that tomorrow. I think we have to preserve the > before the kind otherwise prow would have issues in parsing the PR body.

I’ll check if I can enhance the kind parser for that as well.

[saschagrunert]

To apply @liggitt proposed layout (without the prefix) we have to merge kubernetes/test-infra#17261

[k8s-ci-robot]

@saschagrunert: Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label and removing any existing "release-note-none" label because there is a "kind/deprecation" label on the PR.

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.

[fejta-bot]

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

[saschagrunert]

/remove-lifecycle stale

[saschagrunert]

@justaugustus @liggitt kubernetes/test-infra#17261 is in, prow should now be able to ignore the contents of the HTML comment. Refactored the kinds from the suggestions. PTAL

[saschagrunert]

/retest

[saschagrunert]

/retest

[justaugustus]

/lgtm
/hold cancel