You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was under the impression it was one member from one of the teams, although I think this does beg the question of in what circumstance there will be more than one codeowner, and how those specific teams feel about it
A PR touching two subsystems would be one case where more than one team is pinged. Another question: the approval still has to be from a collaborator (since codeowners can be working group teams and not all members will be collaborators), right?
As for audit, how far do we want to go with the strictness of it? I think we could have an Action in this repository that runs periodically and dumps membership of all teams in the org into files, and opens a PR if anything changes. This way we get notified of any membership changes. It's not super robust since the Action would need to run periodically instead of on an event (there are no Actions for Org events yet), but better than nothing I guess? Or is this more than necessary, and just a sweep of teams every once in a while is enough?
@mmarchini I was looking to see if we have consensus as the target we set for objections has passed. I'm not sure if you think we should change the proposal to be put into nodejs/node#33879 or if the details of the audit can be finalised agreed afterwards?
Activity
mmarchini commentedon Sep 17, 2020
If there are more than one codeowner for a PR, will one approval from each team be require, or only from one of the teams?
MylesBorins commentedon Sep 17, 2020
I was under the impression it was one member from one of the teams, although I think this does beg the question of in what circumstance there will be more than one codeowner, and how those specific teams feel about it
mmarchini commentedon Sep 17, 2020
A PR touching two subsystems would be one case where more than one team is pinged. Another question: the approval still has to be from a collaborator (since codeowners can be working group teams and not all members will be collaborators), right?
mmarchini commentedon Sep 17, 2020
As for audit, how far do we want to go with the strictness of it? I think we could have an Action in this repository that runs periodically and dumps membership of all teams in the org into files, and opens a PR if anything changes. This way we get notified of any membership changes. It's not super robust since the Action would need to run periodically instead of on an event (there are no Actions for Org events yet), but better than nothing I guess? Or is this more than necessary, and just a sweep of teams every once in a while is enough?
mmarchini commentedon Sep 17, 2020
Plus, should we aim for 100% codeownership on nodejs/node?
mmarchini commentedon Sep 17, 2020
(I'm plus one on this proposal, just want to make sure we remove some ambiguity or unclarity from it)
ljharb commentedon Sep 17, 2020
Linking to nodejs/node#33879
mhdawson commentedon Sep 18, 2020
Also related discussion in #921
mhdawson commentedon Sep 24, 2020
@mmarchini I was looking to see if we have consensus as the target we set for objections has passed. I'm not sure if you think we should change the proposal to be put into nodejs/node#33879 or if the details of the audit can be finalised agreed afterwards?
mmarchini commentedon Oct 2, 2020
Audit can be done afterwards IMO
mmarchini commentedon Oct 2, 2020
There were no objections, so I'll assume this is approved. I'll leave a comment in the PR and remove from the agenda.