Skip to content
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

Create Metrics SIG CODEOWNERS in OTEPs and Spec repos #329

Closed
jmacd opened this issue Apr 14, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed

Create Metrics SIG CODEOWNERS in OTEPs and Spec repos #329

jmacd opened this issue Apr 14, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor

jmacd commented Apr 14, 2020

The Metrics SIG has several members who I would like to make into approvers for metrics-related specifications. Since we now have a subdirectory in the Spec repo, specification/metrics, we can create CODEOWNERS there to list metrics approvers.

I would nominate these approvers for metrics:
@bogdandrutu
@jmacd
@c24t
@MrAlias
@jkwatson
@rghetia
@lzchen
@cijothomas

The same is needed in the OTEPs repo, but we don't have subdirectories there. I think we could probably divide the OTEPs text directory into sub-directories for this purpose, but maybe we should just add approvers for the OTEPs directory. Most of the above people are obviously qualified to approve non-metrics issues.

@yurishkuro
Copy link
Member

+1

@carlosalberto
Copy link
Contributor

TC decided to go ahead with this and this specific list of approvers (usually the TC would nominate them, btw). One question is whether this sub-spec-sig will have both approvers and maintainers.

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmacd commented Apr 30, 2020

How do we move this forward? I think we do not need both maintainers and approvers at this point, mainly because there's already overlap with existing maintainers in the above approvers list (Bogdan is in both groups).

@cijothomas
Copy link
Member

https://github.com/open-telemetry/community/blob/master/community-membership.md#approver

Reviewer for or author of at least 10 substantial PRs to the codebase, with the definition of substantial subject to the maintainer's discretion (e.g. refactors/adds new functionality rather than one-line pulls).

The official requirement calls of at least 10 PRs in the repo. I don't meet this criteria, so my name can be removed from the list.

Will continue review metric specs as a regular member :)

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmacd commented Apr 30, 2020

I understand @cijothomas, but if 10 substantial PRs in the OTel specification or OTEPs on metrics were a requirement, very few would quality. This list is a group of people that have shown ongoing interest, have written code, and have participated in the SIG discussion in an ongoing basis. I continue to recommend you. :-)

@jmacd
Copy link
Contributor Author

jmacd commented Jul 2, 2020

This is unfinished, and it's causing problems. We now have metrics approvers in the Spec repo, but not OTEPs. There are 5 OTEPs that should merge about metrics and I believe we have all the right approvers.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants