ci: add "exp" PR type

[pendo324]

Issue #, if available:

Description of changes:

• Add a new "expr" PR type to track experimental features. An "experimental" feature is something that can be used, but is not guaranteed to be stable (such as the changes made by exp(feat): enable Virtualization.framework and Rosetta  #282).

Testing done:

• N/A

• I've reviewed the guidance in CONTRIBUTING.md

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

[ningziwen]

Not language expert.. just want to raise the discussion to think more about the naming and messages.

[ningziwen]

Should the pr title be "ci"?

[pendo324]

Also wondering if we really need to run the full e2e tests for any .github/**.yaml changes. Should I also create a new ci workflow to only lint github workflow yaml, like how we do it in ci-docs?

[ningziwen]

Also wondering if we really need to run the full e2e tests for any .github/**.yaml changes. Should I also create a new ci workflow to only lint github workflow yaml, like how we do it in ci-docs?

@pendo324 The e2e test itself can be added/changed in **.yaml so it is a bit different with .doc. Even specifying a subset of yamls, it can be risky.

[pendo324]

Also wondering if we really need to run the full e2e tests for any .github/**.yaml changes. Should I also create a new ci workflow to only lint github workflow yaml, like how we do it in ci-docs?

@pendo324 The e2e test itself can be added/changed in **.yaml so it is a bit different with .doc. Even specifying a subset of yamls, it can be risky.

I added ci-github-yaml.yaml and it should only trigger for .github/**.yaml files. I agree that e.g. finch.yaml changes should run full e2e tests, but I'm not really sure if GitHub workflows/actions need to run the whole suite. I can remove it if you think it should be its own issue/PR though. WDYT?

[ningziwen]

@pendo324 This will cause changing ci-github-yaml.yaml itself will not run e2e tests, which is risky and require more manual effort to review the changes.

Let's discuss in a separated issue/PR if you still want to propose this.

[pendo324]

@pendo324 This will cause changing ci-github-yaml.yaml itself will not run e2e tests, which is risky and require more manual effort to review the changes.

Let's discuss in a separated issue/PR if you still want to propose this.

I don't necessarily think that's risky, but I see how changing the "actual" e2e test (ci.yaml) could be risky. I'll remove it and create a new issue to track this because I do think running all of the e2e tests for a simple yaml change is wasteful.

[pendo324]

Skipping CI / e2e-tests since this change doesn't impact functionality (just a GitHub workflow YAML change).