OWNERS: enable SIGs, WGs and automation code writers to own their folders #360
Conversation
kubevirt-bot
added
the
dco-signoff: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
kubevirt-bot
added
size/L
do-not-merge/invalid-owners-file
and removed
do-not-merge/invalid-owners-file
labels
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| # TODO: do not forget to add the chairs as approvers and other stakeholders as reviewers | |||
| approvers: [] | |||
| reviewers: [] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dhiller Looks like this pesky wabbit persists
dhiller
changed the title
dhiller
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you @dhiller! Looking good!
Left some questions below
OWNERS_ALIASES
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How should we sync between changes here and in k/k?
IOW, if someone is added as an approver for a SIG, would he need to also add himself to here in a different PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's no automation in place to sync this currently - the only automation that achieves a (though stripped down) sync is the one that keeps the OWNERS file in k/project-infra in sync with the source repositories.
I haven't yet found the time to create an issue on that - I'll do that now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| approvers: | ||
| - code-approvers |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How are code-approvers different than approvers, same for code-reviewers and reviewers? why do we need both?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
code-approvers is the group of people that are maintaining the automation code in this repository. Since I couldn't imagine a better name, I stuck to what I found in k/kubevirt, from which this comes - if you insist I could rename it to i.e. automation-code-reviewers and automation-code-approvers or do you have a better suggestion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer automation-code-* as it is more descriptive.
But I'm also perfectly content to not change it since this matches k/kubevirt and the entry has a descriptive note.
|
It would be great if we could get this in - I am currently blocked on a couple of PRs wrt community automation that require reviews... FYI @aburdenthehand |
sig-TEMPLATE/OWNERS
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| # TODO: do not forget to add the chairs as approvers and other stakeholders as reviewers | |||
| approvers: [] | |||
| reviewers: [] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm guessing this is the same issue Felix mentioned: no newline at EOF
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great stuff @dhiller. There's a nit here that I've added to; aside from that I'm happy to get this in.
|
Thank you @dhiller! |
Copies the structure of k/kubevirt OWNERS_ALIASES, adjusts the current root OWNERS to it - specifically by moving the OWNERS approvers etc. into root approvers, reviewers and emeritus. Then adds OWNERS files referring to the alias entries inside the sig and wg directories. Finally this creates groups for owning the automation code code-reviewers vs code approvers to enable separating reviews from the work root approvers have to do. Signed-off-by: Daniel Hiller <[email protected]>
The OWNERS pluging doesn't like referring untrusted people inside OWNERS_ALIASES so we move them towards regular OWNERS emeritus_approvers section. Signed-off-by: Daniel Hiller <[email protected]>
|
@aburdenthehand @iholder101 thanks for your reviews, fixed the missing newline. PTAL 🙏 |
|
Pull requests that are marked with After that period the bot marks them with the label /label needs-approver-review |
kubevirt-bot
added
the
needs-approver-review
What this PR does / why we need it:
Copies the structure of k/kubevirt OWNERS_ALIASES, adjusts the current root OWNERS to it (by moving the OWNERS approvers etc. into root approvers, reviewers and emeritus).
Then adds OWNERS files referring to the alias entries inside the sig and wg directories.
Finally creates groups for owning the automation code (code-reviewers vs code approvers) to enable separating reviews from the work root approvers have to do.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
/cc @aburdenthehand @vladikr @fabiand
FYI @EdDev @alicefr @rthallisey @vamsikrishna-siddu @iholder101 @0xFelix @lyarwood