-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 169
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
update(OWNERS): move inactive approvers to emeritus_approvers #489
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jason Dellaluce <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey, @jasondellaluce thank you for having removed the reviewers
section, it was really useless here!
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: e6d52cabc04937c4adabb87a38d904c313f67ad0
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 from me since maintainers moved to emeritus have been inactive or have stepped down.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: Andreagit97, FedeDP, jasondellaluce The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind cleanup
/kind documentation
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
What this PR does / why we need it:
For falcosecurity/evolution#157, this PR moves inactive approvers (who had very little or zero contributions over the past 6 months) from approvers to
emeritus_approvers
in OWNERS.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Special notes for your reviewer:
Opened this in place of #460 and #471, following up the suggestion at #460 (comment) and the comment at #471 (comment).
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: