enhancements process documentation improvements#1080
enhancements process documentation improvements#1080openshift-merge-robot merged 23 commits intoopenshift:masterfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Doug Hellmann <dhellmann@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Doug Hellmann <dhellmann@redhat.com>
|
/assign @bparees |
aravindhp
left a comment
aravindhp
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for working on this, @dhellmann. Mostly LGTM with a few comments.
|
/label tide/merge-method-squash |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
tide/merge-method-squash
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: aravindhp The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
openshift-ci
bot
added
the
approved
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: aravindhp The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
|
||
| ## Why are Enhancements Tracked? | ||
|
|
||
| As the project evolves, its important that the OKD community understands how we |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i'm not sure i'd call it the OKD community? maybe just openshift community? (which encompasses OKD and OCP)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(I see you just moved this from elsewhere.....opportunity to fix it, i guess)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I decided to leave it as-is for now because we do have some OKD changes in the pipeline and I'd like for those to settle before we update the docs here to include OKD.
| determine the level of approval needed. If you’re not sure, ask a | ||
| staff engineer to help find a good approver by posting in | ||
| `#forum-arch` on the CoreOS Slack server and tagging | ||
| `@aos-staff-engineers`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as w/ the aos-devel suggestion above, it bothers me a little that this is basically an internal-only process, but it accurately reflects the process we have/follow today. So i guess rather than blocking this on "we need to define the community process before we document our EP workflow", i guess i'll just make a note that this feels like a gap in our EP workflow.
Co-authored-by: Ben Parees <bparees@users.noreply.github.com>
|
my feedback has all been addressed, thanks |
Co-authored-by: Kirsten <kikis.github@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Kirsten <kikis.github@gmail.com>
|
@kikisdeliveryservice I think I've responded to all of your comments with updates. Let me know what you think, please. |
|
Looks good! /lgtm |
|
@dhellmann: all tests passed! Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here. |
6 participants
No description provided.