chore: add default CODEOWNERS - #14
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| * @hotdata-dev/engineers | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: consider granting the team access before merging this (not blocking).
As the description notes, @hotdata-dev/engineers has no access to this repo yet. GitHub only honors code owners with write access, so until the gh api ... -f permission=push call is made this file is not just inert — GitHub's CODEOWNERS syntax check will render it as an error ("Unknown owner" / "does not have write access") on every PR page.
Two consequences worth weighing:
- No reviews get auto-requested, which is the entire stated goal of the PR.
- If this repo has, or later gains, a branch protection rule with Require review from Code Owners, an unresolvable owner makes that requirement unsatisfiable and PRs become unmergeable. I can't inspect branch protection settings from here, so please confirm that rule is off before merging if the access grant is going to lag.
Grant the team push first, then merge, and both concerns go away.
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know! |
📊 Benchmark ComparisonCurrent:
Compared Liquid vs DataFusionDefault on the same runner |
Default CODEOWNERS so new PRs auto-request @hotdata-dev/engineers for review, matching the org-wide convention from the codeowners-sync job.
Opened by hand because the sync job skips forks — but this fork has active first-party development (merged PRs from three team members), so it should get the same review auto-assignment as everything else. Cost vs upstream is a one-file diff.
Note: the @hotdata-dev/engineers team currently has no access to this repo, so this file is inert until someone with org admin runs: