Add v20 changelog docs for PR #15030

[timvaillancourt]

Description

This PR adds a changelog entry to v20 for #15030 now that a changelog subdir exists

Related Issue(s)

#15030

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[frouioui]

LGTM! Thanks for having kept track of this.

[systay]

@timvaillancourt seems like you missed signing that last commit. Our DCO check is angry.

@frouioui the release notes failing is not very informative. do you if we could we make these checks a bit more verbose if they fail?

[deepthi]

Not sure if I got it exactly right but I thought it was worth clarifying.

[deepthi]

oh @timvaillancourt the DCO check is failing. You'll need to amend the commit with a signoff and force-push it.

[deepthi]

@frouioui can you look at the static check failure? It's from Check changelog so I'm not sure why it's complaining about go version.

[timvaillancourt]

@timvaillancourt seems like you missed signing that last commit. Our DCO check is angry.

@systay oh, fixed now I think (after creating a bit of a mess I force-pushed over 😅)

[frouioui]

can you look at the static check failure? It's from Check changelog so I'm not sure why it's complaining about go version.

@deepthi done, just had to merge main.