Add OWNERS for staging and api #44682
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: smarterclayton
Needs approval from an approver in each of these OWNERS Files:
You can indicate your approval by writing |
k8s-github-robot
added
approved
|
This change is |
api/ is a copy of pkg/api (same reasoning) staging/ is the set of people who should be allowing new top level nested packages + the set of people who can change the staging machinery code staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/ is the set of core machinery people
k8s-github-robot
added
size/L
|
@kubernetes/api-approvers @kubernetes/sig-api-machinery-misc adding OWNERS for staging/, api/, and staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/ based on similar roles in other packages. Please comment. |
|
Look good to me. Just one concern on how to make sure we do have the representative from the node on the package of api? Can we make sure bot can request proper reviewers from the node team on some of the API objects, like Pod, Node, etc. |
|
Sure - probably should identify who that is and put them on both api and pkg/api |
|
I nominate this group of engineers representing the node related API: @derekwaynecarr (focusing on the resource management), @yujuhong (focusing on application lifecycle and management), @vishh (focusing on resource management), @timstclair (focusing on the monitoring and security for now) and myself as the catchall for now? |
|
@smarterclayton: The following test(s) failed:
Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR. 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/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
|
I am happy with my assigned roles. |
|
That's a lot of API approvers :) |
|
Or were those just reviewers with yourself as the catchall approver? |
|
@smarterclayton in the absence of a means to further narrow the approval scope, it would be helpful if everyone in @dchen1107's list had approver permissions. |
|
@smarterclayton I am not proposing to add anyone in that group to the approver including myself. I just want to make sure one of them should be the reviewer for the corresponding node related API changes. But I am not sure if the current mechanism can enforce that. |
|
We can't do magic, but all named folks are in the reviewers list for api and pkg/api. |
|
As far as magic we should probably open a contrib-x issue if we want to expand the OWNER bot for that. |
|
Other comments? |
smarterclayton
added
release-note-none
|
@k8s-bot cvm gce e2e test this |
1 similar comment
|
@k8s-bot cvm gce e2e test this |
smarterclayton
added
the
lgtm
|
No other comments, merging (based on general laziness) |
|
Automatic merge from submit-queue |
Part of #44420
Open to changes to staging/ - very rarely changed. Added owners for the other items