update sig-scheduler teams.yaml #3574
Conversation
k8s-ci-robot
added
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
area/github-management
k8s-ci-robot
added
sig/scheduling
Huang-Wei
force-pushed
the
update-scheduler-teams
branch
2 times, most recently
from
5580b92
to
97ae501
Compare
| @@ -2,170 +2,82 @@ teams: | |||
| sig-scheduling-api-reviews: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
api-reviewers? It's actually just me https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/7b9a20b587de81ed7b885e97f2fd1db1deca548b/OWNERS_ALIASES#L452
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would be just for Github notification purposes, not technically "assigned" to someone. So should be fine IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, we can list here any reviewer interested in doing scheduler api-reviews
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If appliable, plz add me to the notify list.
| - denkensk | ||
| - Huang-Wei | ||
| - kerthcet | ||
| - sanposhiho | ||
| privacy: closed | ||
| sig-scheduling-feature-requests: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't it be just the Chairs and TLs here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same as above. It's fine to "notify" more ppl about incoming feature requests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
do we need all of these different aliases? A lot of them are the same people, so I don't necessarily see the benefit of having sig-scheduling-bugs, sig-scheduling-feature-requests, sig-scheduling-pr-reviews, and sig-scheduling-misc. If we're cleaning this up, have we considered consolidating some of these into a generic @sig-scheduling?
|
I considered that, but other SIGs have the aliases listed here. Invoking @mrbobbytables, from sig-contrib-ex for recommendations again. Can we do our own thing? Should other sigs follow our steps? |
You can do your own thing, these were sort of the "defaults" when setting up a SIG ages ago. If they aren't being used, they aren't serving a purpose. Just be sure to update sigs.yaml with the new teams 👍 |
|
Since we can do our own thing, I would consolidate all of those groups into two only: reviewers and approvers. What do you folks think? |
|
And since our approvers are different from reviewers, it might make sense to have |
|
Can we push this forward? @Huang-Wei inspired by kubernetes/website#35042 (comment) |
Huang-Wei
force-pushed
the
update-scheduler-teams
branch
from
97ae501
to
905fc55
Compare
|
@mrbobbytables could you approve this? As a first step (this PR), we want to cleanup the dated members. Next, we may simplify the number of aliases as they all point to the same group of people now. |
|
ping @mrbobbytables. Also, I'm not sure if we are lacking a sig-scheduling-leads group, because I can't apply the label lead-opted-in kubernetes/enhancements#3094 (comment) |
|
@ahg-g also got rejected to apply the label by the bot. So I think we need to move forward with this and the follow up PR. |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Huang-Wei, mrbobbytables The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
Per kubernetes/kubernetes#111392 (comment), update the outdated teams.yaml in sig-scheduling.