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

Revert "Add Value as CODEOWNERS" #1349

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 9, 2024
Merged

Conversation

johnduffell
Copy link
Member

Remove CODEOWNERS because it requests reviews from everyone in the team automatically as soon as anyone raises a PR. This is a problem because it's spammy and also it's no longer clear whether PRs are ready for review.

@johnduffell johnduffell requested a review from a team as a code owner June 26, 2024 17:52
Copy link
Contributor

@ecguardian ecguardian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@johnduffell johnduffell merged commit 5c0204b into main Jul 9, 2024
11 of 13 checks passed
@johnduffell johnduffell deleted the revert-1334-tw/codeowners branch July 9, 2024 14:29
@prout-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Seen on PROD (merged by @johnduffell 10 minutes and 43 seconds ago) Please check your changes!

@tjmw
Copy link
Member

tjmw commented Jul 10, 2024

also it's no longer clear whether PRs are ready for review.

I think if the PR is opened as draft then a review isn't requested, could that be a way to mitigate this (if we ever have to put CODEOWNERS back)?

@johnduffell
Copy link
Member Author

also it's no longer clear whether PRs are ready for review.

I think if the PR is opened as draft then a review isn't requested, could that be a way to mitigate this (if we ever have to put CODEOWNERS back)?

good point
image

and then this happens
image

But the builds still run

The problem would be convincing people to do that in reality!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants