instancetype: Separate docs and give ownership to sub-project #827
Conversation
kubevirt-bot
added
the
dco-signoff: yes
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
lyarwood
force-pushed
the
move-instancetype-docs
branch
from
cce8415 to
2ebb93e
Compare
Signed-off-by: Lee Yarwood <[email protected]>
lyarwood
force-pushed
the
move-instancetype-docs
branch
from
2ebb93e to
314a77d
Compare
|
@phoracek PTAL, thanks! |
|
@lyarwood I fully support and appreciate you owning your part of the user-guide. However, would you please split the part where you introduce a new subsection of "User Workloads" page from the OWNERS change? It may require you to explicitly list all the files your group owns instead of having a convenient subdirectory. I would like @aburdenthehand to review the change to the structure, and that may take a while. Personally, I don't like that it adds another layer to the menu, but perhaps we can make it work. |
|
PR needs rebase. Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
kubevirt-bot
added
the
needs-rebase
|
Pull requests that are marked with After that period the bot marks them with the label /label needs-approver-review |
|
@kubevirt-bot: The label(s) In response to this:
Instructions 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-sigs/prow repository. |
dhiller
added
the
needs-approver-review
|
+1 to Petr's comment. Especially the taking ownership of content 🎉 Would there be any other content from this section that would make sense to group together with instancetypes, that compute/instancetypes would own? (I ask because I wondered if something like 'Presets' would be a useful section name so that it also draws the attention of folks that aren't familiar with instancetypes as a term, so I might expect to see presets and templates also be pulled into that box.) |
/cc @aburdenthehand
/cc @0xFelix
/cc @vladikr
What this PR does / why we need it:
I'd like to rework the instance type docs quite extensively during the 1.4 cycle. Ahead of this it would be useful if we could give ownership of the docs to the instance type sub-project approvers as has already happened with the code within KubeVirt itself.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):Fixes #818
Special notes for your reviewer:
Checklist
This checklist is not enforcing, but it's a reminder of items that could be relevant to every PR.
Approvers are expected to review this list.
Release note: