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

Add OTA team as OWNERS #62

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 27, 2020
Merged

Add OTA team as OWNERS #62

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 27, 2020

Conversation

rthallisey
Copy link
Contributor

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Aug 26, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Aug 26, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mhrivnak, rthallisey

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:
  • OWNERS [mhrivnak,rthallisey]

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

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

21 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@vrutkovs
Copy link
Member

Seems operator e2e is broken, should we override it and have another look later?

@vrutkovs
Copy link
Member

Putting it on hold to sort out later
/hold

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 27, 2020
@rthallisey
Copy link
Contributor Author

How do you override it?

@vrutkovs
Copy link
Member

/override cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws should do the trick

@rthallisey
Copy link
Contributor Author

/override cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@rthallisey: /override requires a failed status context to operate on.
The following unknown contexts were given:

  • cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws

Only the following contexts were expected:

  • ci/prow/cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws
  • ci/prow/images
  • ci/prow/unit
  • tide

In response to this:

/override cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws

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/test-infra repository.

@rthallisey
Copy link
Contributor Author

/override ci/prow/cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link

@rthallisey: Overrode contexts on behalf of rthallisey: ci/prow/cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws

In response to this:

/override ci/prow/cincinnati-operator-e2e-aws

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/test-infra repository.

@wking
Copy link
Member

wking commented Aug 27, 2020

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Aug 27, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit baf865b into master Aug 27, 2020
@rthallisey rthallisey deleted the new-owners branch August 27, 2020 15:11
wking added a commit to wking/cincinnati-operator that referenced this pull request Nov 18, 2020
The ACM devs kindly scaffolded this operator, but have since handed it
off to the updates folks.  This commit completes the ownership
transition begun in f7860a3 (Add OTA as OWNERS, 2020-08-26, openshift#62).

I've also applied a case-insensitve sort to the remaining entries.
PratikMahajan pushed a commit to PratikMahajan/cincinnati-operator that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2021
channels: Explain why we skipped 4.1.32 and 4.1.33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants