-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.5k
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
Update repo permissions on k/enhancements #590
Comments
seems like that should be harmonized with membership of https://github.com/orgs/kubernetes/teams/kubernetes-milestone-maintainers and |
cc @kubernetes/kubernetes-milestone-maintainers |
As long as this repo is where kubernetes/kubernetes features are planned/tracked, I think milestone modification permissions should be consistent between the two repos. |
I'm also surprised at the proposal that maintainers aren't able to decide the status of their features. That seems... unusual, especially since those are the people most likely to have an accurate assessment of the feature. I'm also unsure as to how the "protect the milestone label" translates to "maintainers and release managers don't have write access to this repo". |
@liggitt @smarterclayton -- hmmm, this is more of a "too many cooks" concern than anything else. If that could be solved though... |
Yeah, it seems like fixing the current manual issue tracker <-> spreadsheet process would be better than putting obstacles in the way of the actual milestone maintainers Can sig-release/sig-pm look into pulling snapshot reports of milestone items from the features repo automatically? A bot that scrapes the milestone items daily/weekly/whenever and snapshots that as a committed md file would stay up to date and show change over time. |
Absolutely, @liggitt. I've previously opened some issues around the topic and plan on taking up this effort:
Would love any feedback around the process on those issues as well! :) |
Two thoughts:
|
Probably so, though description editing of issues created by someone else is probably done more in this repo than any other I work in (all sig-auth leads work to maintain/curate our sig's feature issues, for example). The bots don't let us do that.
we could, but the premise of this issue was to prevent modification of feature milestones by some of the people responsible for the content of the milestone |
That I didn't know. I know that's still a pending issue for removing it from k/k, but wasn't aware that same use case applies here. My thought on the milestone command was to offer a way to still allow milestone modification, but not need direct write access. The milestone command could also be modified to do things like ping a team when a milestone is modified so that changes can be tracked. |
To summarize: Feature Owners (SIG Leads + people implementing / sheparding feature) need to:
Feature Maintainers (SIG PM - Product Management, Release Team Features Lead & Shadows) need to:
In addition, passerbys (users or contributors) should be able to have a clear idea of the likelihood of an issue being delivered within a milestone, without having to read the entire discussion or get into the technical weeds. So as a solution, how about we do the following:
The latter lends itself to @liggitt's suggestion for a milestone scraping bot and echoes some of the intent of kubernetes/test-infra#8316. |
What does it mean? And what's the clean-up rule? |
@m1093782566 -- For
For |
@liggitt @smarterclayton -- please provide feedback on this PR about maintaining milestone-maintainers: kubernetes/sig-release#239 |
Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity. If this issue is safe to close now please do so with Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta. |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
As of today:
I can't speak to the policy of who is in what team at present, though FWIW:
|
Thanks for resurrecting this one, @spiffxp! How about we do the following?
I suggest
|
@cblecker -- thoughts on the plan above? |
I personally don't have any concerns about the above. That said, I'm not an active feature contributor, so I am not up on the current features/enhancements process. I'd suggest re-seeking feedback from @liggitt. |
Slack convo with @liggitt yesterday:
|
Sent notification to mailing list regarding this change: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kubernetes-pm/JFthLm0q-uA/SzMBBCzIBQAJ Lazy consensus: Thursday, 2/21 EOD PT |
All the team memberships are in k/org.. so to pull the diff:
Then you have a list of those who would have their access removed. Then you should be able to use something like https://k8s.devstats.cncf.io/d/46/pr-reviews-by-contributor?orgId=1&var-period=d7&var-repo_name=kubernetes%2Fenhancements&var-reviewers=All&from=now-90d&to=now to find out if they have touched anything in k/enhancements. Data is power! |
Okay, I did a little massaging here:
Overall, that devstats board won't be useful here. So for people:
For the sake of overcommunication... @kubernetes/kubernetes-maintainers and @kubernetes/kubernetes-release-managers -- We are updating the permissions on k/enhancements and will be removing groups that don't require write access to the repo, namely The most requested use case for write access to this repo is being able to edit the descriptions for Enhancement tracking issues. If you feel you should have this capability, you should be a part of the The following list of contributors will be losing write access to k/enhancements: |
the last bit of that list doesn't seem to be registering... 🤔 |
@BenTheElder -- probably maxed out on @ mentions on the comment, but everyone should've been notified as a result of being part of those teams. |
Announced on k-dev as well: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/kubernetes-dev/fU-U1JSZ8E4/discussion |
/unassign @cblecker |
Dropped the following teams (their ACL):
Added the following teams (their ACL):
|
Removed the hold on kubernetes/org#498, it will take some time for those changes to propagate. Suggest leaving this open until they're verified. |
Thanks for making the changes, @spiffxp! I've verified that the updates to I've opened two PRs to close the loop on this:
(the latter will close this issue once it merges) |
x-post from #enhancements: The Triage role
did not exist on GitHub when we initially configured privileges for k/enhancements, so we needed to grant Given this role does exist now, I've downgraded the access of @annajung -- FYI, in case enhancement owners encounter issues during enhancement collection. cc: @kubernetes/enhancements |
FeatureEnhancement maintainers often use GitHub settings likeMilestone
to determine whichFeaturesEnhancements require triage.It's important that these settings are only touched by
FeatureEnhancements Maintainers to ensure better signal during the release process.As such, I'd like to do the following:
kubernetes-maintainers
kubernetes-release-managers
kubernetes-milestone-maintainers
enhancements-maintainers
to only include the SIG PM maintainers (@calebamiles, @idvoretskyi, @jdumars, @justaugustus) - sig-pm: Updateenhancements-maintainers
team org#498I suggest
kubernetes-milestone-maintainers
for write access because that team:Previous idea:
Google Group thread: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kubernetes-pm/JFthLm0q-uA
cc: @kubernetes/kubernetes-maintainers @kubernetes/kubernetes-release-managers @kubernetes/features-maintainers
/assign
/assign @cblecker
/sig pm
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: