Propose: Unity integration ownership for @webbertakken/@GabLeRoux - #91
Draft
frostebite wants to merge 1 commit into
Draft
Propose: Unity integration ownership for @webbertakken/@GabLeRoux#91frostebite wants to merge 1 commit into
frostebite wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Draft, not for merging as-is - proposing the same Unity-path ownership scope from the original PR #78 draft, this time for explicit review and acceptance rather than unilateral assignment. Orchestrator ownership (@frostebite, already merged in #90) is unaffected.
|
Important Review skippedDraft detected. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Draft — not for merging as-is. This proposes the same Unity-path ownership scope that was originally (and incorrectly) assigned unilaterally in #78, this time as an explicit proposal for you two to review and accept on your own terms rather than have it silently in effect. See #90 — that pulled the unilateral assignment back out; Unity paths are currently unowned on
main.Scope being proposed
/src/logic/unity/,/src/model/unity/,/src/model/unity-*.ts,/src/plugin/builtin/unity-plugin.ts,/src/middleware/engine-detection/unity-version-detector.ts— Unity engine logic/src/command/activate/,/src/command/**/unity-*.ts,/src/command-options/unity-*.ts— Unity-specific commands/options/dist/platforms/,/dist/default-build-script/,/dist/unity-config/,/dist/BlankProject/— the in-container build/licensing scripts, where #75 and #77 both lived/plugins/unity/— the archived unity-engine-core content (not yet wired intosrc/'s shipping plugin)Why this scope
Unity carries the licensing flows, the Docker/platform entrypoint scripts, and the Android signing paths — the highest-blast-radius surface in the repo (nearly every user hits it) and the hardest to validate locally. Two real bugs (#75, #77) have already lived exactly in this seam.
Orchestrator ownership (
@frostebite, already merged in #90) is unaffected by this proposal either way.Mark this ready for review (or just comment) whenever/however you'd like to respond — happy to adjust scope, add yourselves with different terms, or drop it entirely.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code