Porting owners file from kube-deploy #4
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
size/S
|
I think this is a weird PR because it will give the rest of the owners/maintainers merge rights. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine as a first pass since it mirrors what we have now.
In the meeting, we discussed rethinking this list to better represent the people and companies working on this. But I think that can come in a follow up PR so we can unblock the repo migration.
| cluster-api-admins: | ||
| - justinsb | ||
| - krousey | ||
| - luxas |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree that he should be in the sig leads and part of approvers. I think he was a kube-deploy admin, but not very active in the cluster-api aspect of it. @luxas, does that seem accurate?
| - luxas | ||
| - roberthbailey | ||
| - timothysc | ||
| cluster-api-admins: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this come with github repo privileges like being able to create labels and other things? Is this meant to mirror that structure? If so, then this list should mirror the github organizational structure. It's fine to discuss who should have that level of access here though and then mirror it back to github.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the kube-deploy repo, this list came from the github group with the same name. If we aren't going to be setting up groups in this org then there isn't any point separating out admins from maintainers here.
| - roberthbailey | ||
| - timothysc | ||
| cluster-api-admins: | ||
| - justinsb |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Justin was a kube-deploy admin for the aws image builder sub-project. Not sure if he cares about being an admin for this repo or not.
|
Wondering if we can keep this PR as is (as it's a port) and make changes in other PRs? In general I would tend to favor unchanged ports with later PRs for changes just to keep a clean history and reduce complexity. |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
I went ahead and merged this in - so at least we now have owners defined for work moving forward. Hope this works for everyone. 😬 |
|
To answer your question, I don't need to be in the |
…lusterctl-fixes Kubebuilder clusterctl fixes
hack: include verify scripts based on cluster-api-provider-docker
Starting a bi-weekly meeting. Updated the links and message.
📖 Readme and Versioning docs
Bug fix for clusterresourceset apply
* Introduce CEL for ClusterClass Variables Signed-off-by: chaunceyjiang <[email protected]> * feat: Implement CEL validation * refactor: Add comments from previous code reviews * chore: Generate CC manifest after fixing list type annotation (#2) * chore: Fix up CRD manifest * fix: Pass through context to CEL funcs * feat: Add CEL admission cost validation * refactor: Add nolint to unbounded * refactor: Fix up new func signature * build: Fix up go mod for tools * fixup! refactor: Apply review feedback * fixup! build: Regenerate openapi spec * fixup! refactor: Apply review feedback * fixup! fix: Regenerate everything * fixup! fix: Apply review feedback * fixup! fix: More review feedback * fixup! refactor: Address review feedback, especially re recursion * fixup! fix: Check total cost * fixup! refactor: Address review feedback - rename testCtx to ctx * CEL: Various improvements (#3) * resolve compile issue after rebase * Some more improvements (#4) --------- Signed-off-by: chaunceyjiang <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jimmi Dyson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jimmi Dyson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Stefan Büringer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Stefan Bueringer <[email protected]>
Copying an owners file is just to get us started
closes #3