Conversation
|
The following are automatically added/executed:
Available user actions:
Supported labels{'/build-push-pr-image', '/verified', '/cherry-pick', '/hold', '/lgtm', '/wip'} |
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughUpdated the OWNERS configuration file by replacing placeholder approver and reviewer entries with three explicit users (dbasunag, jgarciao, lugi0) in both the approvers and reviewers sections. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Nitpick comments (1)
OWNERS (1)
6-8: Consider whether identical approvers and reviewers lists are necessary.The same users appear in both the
approversandreviewerssections. In many projects, the reviewers list is broader than approvers to separate review from merge permissions. If this redundancy is intentional for your team structure, feel free to ignore this comment.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
OWNERS
🔇 Additional comments (1)
OWNERS (1)
2-4: Ensure organizational approval before granting approver permissions.These GitHub users (jgarciao and lugi0 are confirmed as active developers, dbasunag appears valid) exist, but approver access grants significant repository permissions and requires documented organizational approval before merging.
|
/lgtm |
|
Status of building tag latest: success. |
Description
How Has This Been Tested?
Merge criteria:
Summary by CodeRabbit
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.