Skip to content

Conversation

Elbehery
Copy link
Member

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: Elbehery
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign ptabor for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

Signed-off-by: Mustafa Elbehery <[email protected]>
@Elbehery Elbehery force-pushed the 20250612-OWNERS_add_elbehery branch from af28c94 to 5716db3 Compare June 12, 2025 18:51
@serathius
Copy link
Member

Thanks for initiative, please read the etcd requirements for becoming a reviewer https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/Documentation/contributor-guide/community-membership.md#reviewers

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Jun 12, 2025

@Elbehery as we discussed in the community meeting, please read the membership guide as mentioned in #116 (comment) (also mentioned above by @serathius )

For the gofail project/tool, AFAIK we don't have any new TODO features for now, so we don't have opportunity to evaluate the contributor's knowledge on the project by his/her work (i.e PRs). We will have to depend on the existing maintainer's judgement/evaluation. @Elbehery please read the design I provided in #116 (comment) and spend some time to under the internal mechanism of the project. I am happy to have 1:1 talk to evaluate your understanding on the project later. Please anyone let me know if you have better way to proceed.

For now, we have regular (weekly) dependencies bumping PRs and also golang version bumping PRs, we need maintainers/reviews to take care of them. We might have enhancement in future. We also need maintainers to respond to PRs/issues. We should encourage & help people to grow into an approver or reviewer role (being review first, and approver later).

So proposal to @Elbehery :

  • Please ensure you have a deep understanding on the project
  • Please help us to take care of the daily routine mentioned above.

@Elbehery
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks for initiative, please read the etcd requirements for becoming a reviewer https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/blob/main/Documentation/contributor-guide/community-membership.md#reviewers

Thanks for your review 🙏🏽 .. Will go through it in details 👍🏽

@Elbehery
Copy link
Member Author

@Elbehery as we discussed in the community meeting, please read the membership guide as mentioned in #116 (comment) (also mentioned above by @serathius )

For the gofail project/tool, AFAIK we don't have any new TODO features for now, so we don't have opportunity to evaluate the contributor's knowledge on the project by his/her work (i.e PRs). We will have to depend on the existing maintainer's judgement/evaluation. @Elbehery please read the design I provided in #116 (comment) and spend some time to under the internal mechanism of the project. I am happy to have 1:1 talk to evaluate your understanding on the project later. Please anyone let me know if you have better way to proceed.

For now, we have regular (weekly) dependencies bumping PRs and also golang version bumping PRs, we need maintainers/reviews to take care of them. We might have enhancement in future. We also need maintainers to respond to PRs/issues. We should encourage & help people to grow into an approver or reviewer role (being review first, and approver later).

So proposal to @Elbehery :

* Please ensure you have a deep understanding on the project

* Please help us to take care of the daily routine mentioned above.

Thanks so much for your guidance, yes indeed, will go through the docs && code-base and will notify you once I am ready for the 1:1 discussion 🙏🏽 🙏🏽 🙏🏽

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants