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

Changes in codeowners shouldn't require ecosystem review #3131

Closed

Conversation

jsoriano
Copy link
Member

Testing codeowners file. Don't merge.

@jsoriano jsoriano self-assigned this Apr 20, 2022
@jsoriano jsoriano requested a review from a team as a code owner April 20, 2022 10:18
@jsoriano
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, adding a new package still asks for a review of the ecosystem team, so something here is not working as expected.

@elasticmachine
Copy link

elasticmachine commented Apr 20, 2022

💔 Build Failed

the below badges are clickable and redirect to their specific view in the CI or DOCS
Pipeline View Test View Changes Artifacts preview preview

Expand to view the summary

Build stats

  • Start Time: 2022-04-20T10:18:21.268+0000

  • Duration: 4 min 26 sec

Steps errors 2

Expand to view the steps failures

Checks and builds Go sources
  • Took 0 min 14 sec . View more details here
  • Description: mage -debug check
Google Storage Download
  • Took 0 min 0 sec . View more details here

🤖 GitHub comments

To re-run your PR in the CI, just comment with:

  • /test : Re-trigger the build.

@jsoriano
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, adding a new package still asks for a review of the ecosystem team, so something here is not working as expected.

Fix in #3132.

@jsoriano jsoriano closed this Apr 20, 2022
@jsoriano jsoriano reopened this Apr 20, 2022
@jsoriano
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, ecosystem review is not required anymore :)

@jsoriano jsoriano closed this Apr 20, 2022
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants