Update adding maintainer section#2370
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2370 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 41.26% 44.99% +3.73%
==========================================
Files 66 92 +26
Lines 7850 9398 +1548
==========================================
+ Hits 3239 4229 +990
- Misses 4103 4486 +383
- Partials 508 683 +175
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Not going to merge until a plurality of maintainers have had a chance to look over it. However, I agree with @dmcgowan that this does not seem to be a rules change but more a clarification of how we have been practically applying the "add a maintainer" process. |
MAINTAINERS
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIUC maintainership is organization-scoped, not repository-scoped?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think we should probably clarify that as well. This line only got touched for formatting. I would prefer to separate that change unless you want to add a commit to my branch to clarify 😄
|
LGTM |
|
Any other comments from @containerd/containerd-maintainers ? Seems like we have a majority. |
|
LGTM |
MAINTAINERS
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit.. their vote. Votes may take place on the mailing list or via pull request.
MAINTAINERS
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if you accept the above edit.. could /s/also// here.
Updates the maintainers file to align with the process we have been following for adding maintainers and reviewers. Signed-off-by: Derek McGowan <derek@mcgstyle.net>
dd0f31a to
7ba62b1
Compare
Updates the maintainers file to align with the process we have been following for adding maintainers and reviewers.
I do not believe this to be a rules change as it is just reflecting the rules we have already been following. Any maintainer is free to disagree though if this doesn't sound accurate.