Skip to content

Conversation

@martinemde
Copy link
Contributor

As far as I can tell, this key was not intentionally removed and its presence is missed. Based on issues reported, We're restoring support rather than fix all the other things that depend on it.

Related to: rubyatscale/code_ownership#141

As far as I can tell, this key was not intentionally removed and its
presence is missed. Based on issues reported, We're restoring support
rather than fix all the other things that depend on it.

Tolerate having both keys set as long as they are the same.
Fail when metadata.owner and owner are different.

Since we don't know what other tooling reads this owner key, it seems
better to error on ambiguity. It's possible other tooling reads this
value from the package.yml. We can adjust if we find problems.

Related to: rubyatscale/code_ownership#141
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Triage

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants