Revisit the OWNERS file for kubeadm#63551
Conversation
|
ack |
cmd/kubeadm/OWNERS
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@luxas I think this needs to be a yaml comment (starts with # not //)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh true this is a yaml file. Will do
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@luxas I'd like to join in. Could you pls add me as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, in the SIG meeting I recalled you already were on this list and hence didn't mention adding you 😂, but yes, you should of course be here given the many reviews you've done and successfully participating in the pilot mentoring programme!
|
ACK 👍 |
|
ack |
|
/lgtm hold is to wait for timeout. |
|
ACK |
|
ack |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: fabriziopandini, luxas, timothysc The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
nack https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/community-membership.md this suggests reviewers should be members for at least 3 months, primary reviewer for 5+ PRs, and reviewed 20+ PRs. I don't meet any of those requirements, so I probably shouldn't be a reviewer @luxas |
|
perhaps it would be possible to make an exception in a space where there is a need for more experienced reviewers. |
|
sure, but I dunno that I count as "experienced" at this point :p |
|
ack |
|
@liztio Being a "reviewer" in this case is more about being pinged for reviews on new PRs by the bot and officially having some kind of responsibility for reviewing PRs in that area. Being in this list doesn't give you either less or more power to actually merge things.The community membership guidelines are great, but given your dedication to kubeadm at the moment it doesn't make sense for me as a SIG lead to not include you here at this time just because you haven't yet come up to a specific number of reviews. I'm very confident you're gonna have done that number of reviews fairly soon, when pinged by the bot and from just burning down the open PRs stack with the rest of the kubeadm team. Of course no one forces you to be on this list. It sounded like you're okay with it personally, but that you were just unsure if you met the requirements generally and now became hesitant if it's okay for others. Is that right? You have my support at least, and I'm sure you're gonna continue to do great work for us with your name here in this list 👍 |
2cd4591 to
69cb1a5
Compare
|
New changes are detected. LGTM label has been removed. |
|
ack ✅ |
|
/retest |
|
ack 👍 |
|
ack |
1 similar comment
|
ack |
|
ack -- I effectively don't have time. |
No worries! @timothysc we have all ACK's needed, please re-apply the LGTM |
|
/test pull-kubernetes-e2e-gce |
|
Given that all needed ACK's are here, and that @timothysc lgtm'd this same PR earlier, I'm gonna let this merge. /hold cancel |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue. If you want to cherry-pick this change to another branch, please follow the instructions here. |
What this PR does / why we need it:
The OWNERS file for kubeadm is getting a little bit stale. As discussed in today's SIG Cluster Lifecycle meeting, we're gonna update it with the currently active contributors.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Every person that is involved here, please ACK and LGTM the change.
@jbeda removed from approvers
@krousey removed from approvers/reviewers
@fabriziopandini graduated to an approver
@dmmcquay removed from reviewers
@jamiehannaford removed from reviewers
@Kargakis removed from reviewers
@liztio added to reviewers
@chuckha added to reviewers
@detiber added to reviewers
@stealthybox added to reviewers
@dixudx added to reviewers
Thank you everyone for your contributions 👏 (no one can't maintain something forever), and congratulations and welcome everyone with a new role, happy to have you here 👍!
Release note:
cc @kubernetes/sig-cluster-lifecycle-pr-reviews