.pullapprove.yml: List project maintainers separately #29
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
wking
force-pushed
the
distributed-pull-approve-teams
branch
12 times, most recently
from
f6dbf92
to
e4ca9f0
Compare
|
The “.pullapprove.yml proposed by this PR is invalid” error is because each of the teams will need to be assigned to this repository. From the PullApprove page:
|
|
@caniszczyk can we adopt this? opencontainers/image-spec#609 (comment) is kinda annoying |
|
@jonboulle @wking sure, we also need to enable the "github_reviews" option to ensure that those are counted: https://docs.pullapprove.com/groups/github_reviews/ |
|
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 07:53:21AM -0700, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:
… we also need to enable the "github_reviews" option to ensure that
those are counted:
https://docs.pullapprove.com/groups/github_reviews/
I don't think we need to. From [1]:
GitHub review integration is enabled by default but can be disabled
if need be…
Still, I'm happy to add the setting if we want to make that explicit.
I've pushed e4ca9f0 → 96ab978 adding the selinux-maintainers team.
[1]: dropseed/pullapprove-support#98 (comment)
|
cyphar
reviewed
Mar 17, 2017
.pullapprove.yml
Outdated
| approve_by_comment: | ||
| enabled: true | ||
| approve_regex: ^LGTM | ||
| reject_regex: ^Rejected |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While we're doing this, can we make this NACK? 😉
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While we're doing this, can we make this NACK?
My preference would be to use LGTM and REJECT (what does NACK even mean? "Not acknowledged" sounds like "I'm refusing to admit this exists" and not like "I don't like this"). But I don't really care what the terms are as long as they're special enough to not be accidental.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, NACK is how LKML does it. I don't really mind but it would be nice if it was all-caps so that it stands out in the text.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fwiw I always took "nack" as "negative acknowledgement" (I acknowledge reviewing this and it should not be shipped at this time)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
fwiw I always took "nack" as "negative acknowledgement"…
Good enough for me. I've spun this off into #32 to avoid distracting from this PR.
cyphar
reviewed
Mar 17, 2017
.pullapprove.yml
Outdated
| author_approval: | ||
| ignored: true | ||
| always_pending: | ||
| title_regex: 'WIP' |
cyphar
reviewed
Mar 17, 2017
.pullapprove.yml
Outdated
| required: 2 | ||
| reject_value: -1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure we should have this, since it means you'd need 3 LGTMs to get a NACK'd PR merged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure we should have this, since it means you'd need 3 LGTMs to get a NACK'd PR merged.
That's why I put it in ;). It seems like there should be a distinction between abstains/no-review and "I looked at this and didn't like it".
But I'm happy to pull 0a60167 out into a follow-up PR if it would help land the rest of this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've spun this point off into #31 so we can land the rest of this PR.
wking
force-pushed
the
distributed-pull-approve-teams
branch
from
96ab978
to
c87ca52
Compare
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2017
Docs in http://docs.pullapprove.com/groups/always_pending/ The ^ prefix (anchoring the match to the front of the title) is Aleksa's suggestion [1]. [1]: opencontainers#29 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
force-pushed
the
distributed-pull-approve-teams
branch
from
c87ca52
to
06f8c77
Compare
|
Can you squash this into one commit and rebase this? |
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2017
I'm fine with REJECT, but Aleksa suggested a switch to NACK [1] to match the Linux Kernel's usage [2,3]. Jon suggests it may mean “negative acknowledgement” [4]. I've updated both GOVERNANCE and the PullApprove config because it seems better to have consistent keywords (so maintainers don't have to remember which context-dependent string keyword should use). [1]: opencontainers#29 (comment) [2]: opencontainers#29 (comment) [3]: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.0/0303.html [4]: opencontainers#29 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
force-pushed
the
distributed-pull-approve-teams
branch
from
06f8c77
to
7233104
Compare
wking
force-pushed
the
distributed-pull-approve-teams
branch
from
7233104
to
8feb0fd
Compare
This repository is managed by the union of all OCI Project maintainers. To avoid having a few active maintainers from one project driving the template in ways that other projects don't support, require at least two approvals from each project. This will slow down acceptance a bit, but many maintainers belong to multiple projects (and their votes will count for each group [1]), so you won't need 12 separate maintainers voting to get a single project-template PR across the line. Also update from config format v1 to v2 [1,2]. [1]: http://docs.pullapprove.com/migrating-to-v2/ [2]: http://docs.pullapprove.com/ Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Docs in http://docs.pullapprove.com/groups/always_pending/ The ^ prefix (anchoring the match to the front of the title) is Aleksa's suggestion [1]. [1]: opencontainers#29 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Docs in http://docs.pullapprove.com/groups/conditions/ Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
The main example has it outside [1], but it's a group setting [1], so we can move it inside for consistency [2]. [1]: http://docs.pullapprove.com/ [2]: http://docs.pullapprove.com/pr-settings/group_defaults/ Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
This project was initially approved as go-selinux [1] but has since renamed itself to drop the go- prefix [2]. [1]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/forum/#!topic/tob/nH8QU6UnrqA Subject: VOTE Required: approve new project go-selinux Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:21:37 +0000 Message-ID: <CAD2oYtPzgJKeiKKxFnds-yH+2OG3WF6d36gR1uD2Y3+QQdsgpw@mail.gmail.com> [2]: opencontainers/selinux#6 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2017
Catching up with opencontainers/tob@0057edc (Merge pull request opencontainers#29 from opencontainers/selinux-project, 2017-02-23) and the subsequent rename [1]. I'd still rather drop the parenthetical entirely and link to a place that listed OCI Projects, but we don't have a canonical target for that yet (opencontainers/tob#2) and the current closest instance seems to be the GitHub section in [2] (which doesn't have the "OCI Project" words). [1]: opencontainers/selinux#6 (comment) [2]: https://www.opencontainers.org/community Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
|
@wking it's a preference thing but I don't have energy right now to fight the request |
|
Looks like we're still missing an |
wking
added a commit
to wking/oci-project-template
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2017
I'm fine with REJECT, but Aleksa suggested a switch to NACK [1] to match the Linux Kernel's usage [2,3]. Jon suggests it may mean “negative acknowledgement” [4]. I've updated both GOVERNANCE and the PullApprove config because it seems better to have consistent keywords (so maintainers don't have to remember which context-dependent string keyword should use). [1]: opencontainers#29 (comment) [2]: opencontainers#29 (comment) [3]: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706.0/0303.html [4]: opencontainers#29 (comment) Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/image-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 17, 2017
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version are: * Kept the image-spec-specific approve_regexp. * Removed all the groups except for the image-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/image-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 20, 2017
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version are: * Kept the image-spec-specific approve_regexp. * Removed all the groups except for the image-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
jonboulle
added a commit
to jonboulle/image-tools
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2017
This lazily copies image-spec's configuration as updated via opencontainers/project-template#29 and opencontainers/image-spec#616 Signed-off-by: Jonathan Boulle <jonathanboulle@gmail.com>
wking
added a commit
to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 5, 2017
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version is removing all the groups except for the runtime-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
dattgoswami9lk5g
added a commit
to dattgoswami9lk5g/bremlinr
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version are: * Kept the image-spec-specific approve_regexp. * Removed all the groups except for the image-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
7c00d
pushed a commit
to 7c00d/J1nHyeockKim
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version are: * Kept the image-spec-specific approve_regexp. * Removed all the groups except for the image-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
7c00d
added a commit
to 7c00d/J1nHyeockKim
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version are: * Kept the image-spec-specific approve_regexp. * Removed all the groups except for the image-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
laventuraw
added a commit
to laventuraw/Kihara-tony0
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2022
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version are: * Kept the image-spec-specific approve_regexp. * Removed all the groups except for the image-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
tomalopbsr0tt
added a commit
to tomalopbsr0tt/fabiojosej
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 6, 2022
Pull in changes from [1]. The only changes vs. the upstream version are: * Kept the image-spec-specific approve_regexp. * Removed all the groups except for the image-spec group. [1]: opencontainers/project-template#29 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This repository is managed by the union of all OCI Project maintainers. To avoid having a few active maintainers from one project driving the template in ways that other projects don't support, require at least two approvals from each project. This will slow down acceptance a bit, but many maintainers belong to multiple projects (and their votes will count for each group), so you won't need 12 separate maintainers voting to get a single project-template PR across the line.
A side benefit of this is that we no longer need to maintain the tdc-maintainers team.
Also update from config format v1 to v2 and pull in some new features (which I can spin off into separate PRs if they turn out to be controversial).