Skip to content

Update owners files for autoscaling #1174

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 21, 2018
Merged

Conversation

bskiba
Copy link
Member

@bskiba bskiba commented Aug 21, 2018

fixes #1111

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files. labels Aug 21, 2018
@bskiba
Copy link
Member Author

bskiba commented Aug 21, 2018

@mwielgus @MaciekPytel

@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
approvers:
- fgrzadkowski
- mwielgus
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

mwielgus is already a top level owner, so probably redundant here (or I want to be included as well :) )

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

@aleksandra-malinowska
Copy link
Contributor

Do we want to add an OWNERS file for builder/ as well? It's specific to Cluster Autoscaler and changes there are necessary e.g. when adding extra build dependency (that won't be included in the release image anyway). However, with the new setup it will require approval by top-level OWNERS. Given that changes such as adding dependencies to be included in the release image only require cluster-autoscaler/OWNERS approval, this doesn't seem right.

@bskiba
Copy link
Member Author

bskiba commented Aug 21, 2018

@aleksandra-malinowska shouldn't the builder be used for all autoscaling images (I have some wip that adds build-in-docker to vpa)? Then this would imply that top-level OWNERS is right for it.

@aleksandra-malinowska
Copy link
Contributor

If this is going to be the case, then sure, it should probably require top-level approval, to avoid one project's dependencies' update from breaking another one. Although I don't think it's the best idea to share it, given that each project may require different dependencies. In particular, sharing it would mean we'd always have to sync upgrading to use newer version of Go for all projects (which would in some cases mean synchronized godeps update for all of them.)

@MaciekPytel
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe we should add addon-resizer owners too while we're doing it? I guess that would be @x13n and @kawych?

@aleksandra-malinowska
Copy link
Contributor

addon-resizer/OWNERS already exists, but +1 to updating it (AFAIU Q-Lee is no longer working on this, and current maintainers are missing)

@bskiba
Copy link
Member Author

bskiba commented Aug 21, 2018

Added addon-resizer changes.

@bskiba
Copy link
Member Author

bskiba commented Aug 21, 2018

@kawych @x13n FYI

@mwielgus
Copy link
Contributor

/lgtm

@k8s-ci-robot k8s-ci-robot added the lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 21, 2018
@mwielgus mwielgus merged commit 613f223 into kubernetes:master Aug 21, 2018
yaroslava-serdiuk pushed a commit to yaroslava-serdiuk/autoscaler that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2024
….Condition (kubernetes#1174)

* [api/admissioncheck] Use custom AdmissionCheckState instead of metav1.Condition

* Review Remarks

* Review remarks.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
cncf-cla: yes Indicates the PR's author has signed the CNCF CLA. lgtm "Looks good to me", indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/S Denotes a PR that changes 10-29 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Create an OWNERS file
5 participants