Skip to content

chore: updating code owners to team - #54

Open
kotharironak wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
kotharironak-patch-1
Open

chore: updating code owners to team#54
kotharironak wants to merge 2 commits into
mainfrom
kotharironak-patch-1

Conversation

@kotharironak

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@github-actions

This comment has been minimized.

@codecov

codecov Bot commented Aug 10, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 69.20%. Comparing base (55de008) to head (c820ef3).
⚠️ Report is 83 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            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.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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.

@aaron-steinfeld aaron-steinfeld left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
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

skjindal93 commented Aug 12, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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

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