Conversation
Signed-off-by: npolshakova <nina.polshakova@solo.io>
npolshakova
requested review from
a team,
ilevine,
ilrudie,
jenshu,
linsun and
yuval-k
as code owners
CONTRIBUTOR_LADDER.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| You must already be a Maintainer of kgateway to become a CODEOWNER. | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Review/author at least 10 PRs in the repository under the specific CODEOWNERS group |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if we're going to put this here, i think we need to be more precise. is it review 10 PRs and author 10 PRs? or review and author a combined 10 PRs?
"under the specific CODEOWNERS group" - maybe change to "in the specific CODEOWNERS area" or something like that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How does 5 to review and 5 to author sound?
| You must already be a Maintainer of kgateway to become a CODEOWNER. | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Review/author at least 10 PRs in the repository under the specific CODEOWNERS group | ||
| 2. Get nominated by an existing CODEOWNER of that group and update the org.yaml and get a +1 from another CODEOWNER |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
how do we get nominated? would it be a PR using a specific template (similar to org membership and maintainer nomination)?
(also, if we want to give this more thought, i'm good with ripping out the updates to this file and handling it in a follow-up PR)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need a template, especially if we eventually want to move to Prow. That's extra overhead and process for something that we know we want to be able to change.
I think the person nominated just needs to open a PR with the change to add the new codeowner, and we need a +1 comment.
org.yaml
Outdated
| repos: | ||
| kgateway: maintain |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure but i think we can remove this since the CODEOWNERS file just needs the group name, and everyone in this list already has kgateway: maintain permissions via the controller-maintainers list
org.yaml
Outdated
| repos: | ||
| kgateway: maintain |
|
@npolshakova @jenshu Does this PR require more discussion? Haven't been keeping up with the notifications on this issue. Let's talk offline if there's anything holding this up, would love to see it hooked up to kgw. |
|
yeah we discussed offline that we're going to revert the last change and see if peribolos complains |
Signed-off-by: Jenny Shu <28537278+jenshu@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Jenny Shu <28537278+jenshu@users.noreply.github.com>
org.yaml
Outdated
| - timflannagan | ||
| - yuval-k | ||
| privacy: closed | ||
| agw-api-owners: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: for consistency do we want kgw-api-owners / agw-api-owners or kgateway-api-owners / agentgateway-api-owners?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
using the long name for both for now
Signed-off-by: Jenny Shu <28537278+jenshu@users.noreply.github.com>
4 participants
Initial codeowner groups