Skip to content
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

chore: updating code owners to team #54

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kotharironak
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 10, 2022

Codecov Report

Merging #54 (c820ef3) into main (55de008) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main      #54   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     69.20%   69.20%           
  Complexity      106      106           
=========================================
  Files            15       15           
  Lines           565      565           
  Branches         33       33           
=========================================
  Hits            391      391           
  Misses          154      154           
  Partials         20       20           
Flag Coverage Δ
unit 69.20% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

@github-actions
Copy link

Unit Test Results

  9 files  ±0    9 suites  ±0   8s ⏱️ ±0s
31 tests ±0  31 ✔️ ±0  0 💤 ±0  0 ❌ ±0 

Results for commit c820ef3. ± Comparison against base commit 55de008.

Copy link
Contributor

@aaron-steinfeld aaron-steinfeld left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I think I recall @skjindal93 had moved some repos away from team ownership, so might want to discuss that first.

@kotharironak
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I think I recall @skjindal93 had moved some repos away from team ownership, so might want to discuss that first.

Team base approach makes it easy to add/remove members, isn't it? Or that's not the case?

@skjindal93
Copy link
Contributor

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I think I recall @skjindal93 had moved some repos away from team ownership, so might want to discuss that first.

Team base approach makes it easy to add/remove members, isn't it? Or that's not the case?

Just that team based approach needs admin to add new code owners to the team

It becomes easy otherwise to update code owners, if they are just listed out in the CODEOWNERS file. Anyone can raise a PR to add them

@aaron-steinfeld
Copy link
Contributor

Just that team based approach needs admin to add new code owners to the team

Not a global or repo admin though, a team maintainer. So if that's the approach we want, we could choose to make all (or just some) members of each team as maintainers.
image

@skjindal93
Copy link
Contributor

skjindal93 commented Aug 12, 2022

Just that team based approach needs admin to add new code owners to the team

Not a global or repo admin though, a team maintainer. So if that's the approach we want, we could choose to make all (or just some) members of each team as maintainers. image

I am fine with either approach, as long there is an easy way to add more code owners, and seems like there is. Though, it also becomes easy to see the enumerated code reviewers in a pull request, rather than clicking on the user group and inspecting the members

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants