OCPBUGS#44258: Updating the items.spec.osImages field example configuration #85704
Conversation
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
size/XS
|
🤖 Tue Dec 03 09:49:37 - Prow CI generated the docs preview: |
|
@sr1kar99: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
@imiller0 |
|
@yliu127 |
|
/lgtm |
|
@dgonyier: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/label merge-review-needed |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
merge-review-needed
skopacz1
added
the
merge-review-in-progress
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this one instance I am willing to "peer review" the PR while merging, but this is definitely not an accepted practice. Every single PR, no matter how simple, requires a peer review before a merge review. It's an essential part of our process, because a peer reviewer will be checking for slightly different things than a merge reviewer.
There are times when there are exceptions to the requirement for a QE review (typo/formatting fixes, etc), but there will never be an exception to the peer review requirement AFAIK. If a PR is urgent, you can always tag the review channel explaining the context to get a peer review sooner in that case.
Other than that, PR LGTM for both peer review and merge review.
skopacz1
added
peer-review-done
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.12 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.13 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.14 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.15 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.16 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.17 |
|
/cherrypick enterprise-4.18 |
|
@skopacz1: new pull request created: #86468 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@skopacz1: new pull request created: #86469 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@skopacz1: new pull request created: #86470 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@skopacz1: new pull request created: #86471 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@skopacz1: new pull request created: #86472 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@skopacz1: new pull request created: #86473 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
@skopacz1: new pull request created: #86474 In response to this:
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
skopacz1
removed
merge-review-in-progress
Version(s):
4.12+
Issue:
OCPBUGS-44258
Link to docs preview:
QE review:
Note to the merge reviewer: I think this PR does not require a peer review.