Update codeowners#15869
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Azure.Core is not the right one for this one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah okay my bad - we can leave it as NotInRepo instead then
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one might just be for the resource manager for Cosmos... not for all of Cosmos... We should ask
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This folder only contains the resource manager for network... That might be the right thing -- but not 100% sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd consider removing %Service Attention duplication in this file and have the tool that sets up the rule add this label automatically.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Talked about this offline -- we'll leave this in for now.
weshaggard
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Made one comment but otherwise looks good.
… merge conflicts.
added some more folders to service labels I found
Update 2 owners.
Update the ARM - Core entry to not point to Azure.Core
Doing this so that we reduce the amount of comments in the file which could lead to confusion.
3e07e9a to
f00d81a
Compare
Add the Event Hubs, Event Grid and Service Bus owners.
Update Event Hubs CODEOWNER
|
@AlexGhiondea: You may want to consider pulling in the additions from #16200 and #16189 |
|
|
||
| # ######## Management Plane ######## | ||
|
|
||
| /**/*Management*/ @allenjzhang @m-nash @markcowl @YalinLi0312 @bquantump @nisha-bhatia |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one is broad and catches things like changes to sdk/servicebus/Azure.Messaging.ServiceBus/tests/Administration/ServiceBusManagementClientLiveTests.cs. I don't have a good suggestion for tuning it, but maybe you do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will leave that as-is for now... this particular one is only used for the PR owner suggestions.
|
/check-enforcer override |
|
@AlexGhiondea: You'll likely want to absorb the additions from ##16440 as well. |
Update EventGrid.
Fix issue with the PR Label.
Incorporate Azure#16200
Incorporate Azure#16363
Incorporate Azure#16440
|
/check-enforcer override |
|
This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer. What is Check Enforcer?Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass. Why am I getting this message?You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged. What should I do now?If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows: What if I am onboarding a new service?Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them, in order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, you can issue the following command as a pull request comment: |
Ensure that for WebJobs we label PRs.
Clarify the storage section.
| # PRLabel: %DigitalTwins | ||
| /sdk/digitaltwins/ @drwill-ms @timtay-microsoft @abhipsaMisra @vinagesh @azabbasi @bikamani @barustum @jamdavi | ||
| # ServiceLabel: %Digital Twins %Service Attention | ||
| /sdk/digitaltwins/ @drwill-ms @timtay-microsoft @abhipsaMisra @vinagesh @azabbasi @bikamani @barustum @sourabhguha @inesk-vt @jamdavi |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did @sourabhguha and @inesk-vt get added? I'm not against it, but noticing this is a change. They may not want all the PR email.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comes from the internal wiki list. I will add them there for now and if there is too much traffic we can remove.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked with Saurabh, and he asked me to remove him. I'm checking with Ines.
Is there any benefit to them to be on this list, aside from PR participation?
Remove person not on the team anymore.
|
/check-enforcer override |
* Add codeowners to the file * Add more changes to the codeowners file. * Re-arrange codeowners file * Move the Management and EngSys sections to the top of the file. * Remove angled brackets from the file to not make it look like we have merge conflicts. * Update CODEOWNERS added some more folders to service labels I found * Update CODEOWNERS Update 2 owners. * Update CODEOWNERS Update the ARM - Core entry to not point to Azure.Core * Remove the extra comment around the actual entries Doing this so that we reduce the amount of comments in the file which could lead to confusion. * Update CODEOWNERS Add the Event Hubs, Event Grid and Service Bus owners. * Update CODEOWNERS Update Event Hubs CODEOWNER * Update CODEOWNERS Update EventGrid. * Update CODEOWNERS Fix issue with the PR Label. * Update CODEOWNERS Incorporate Azure#16200 * Update CODEOWNERS Incorporate Azure#16363 * Update CODEOWNERS Incorporate Azure#16440 * Update CODEOWNERS Ensure that for WebJobs we label PRs. * Update CODEOWNERS Clarify the storage section. * Update CODEOWNERS Remove person not on the team anymore. Co-authored-by: Meera Haridasa <22649188+meeraharidasa@users.noreply.github.com>
No description provided.