v0.3 backport: Add Java coverage reporting#734
v0.3 backport: Add Java coverage reporting#734feast-ci-bot merged 2 commits intofeast-dev:v0.3-branchfrom
Conversation
ches
requested review from
davidheryanto,
pradithya,
thirteen37,
woop and
zhilingc
as code owners
|
/assign @woop |
|
/hold I think some of the work for setting Feast version consistently needs to be backported also to fix the |
ches
changed the title
|
Thanks @ches
Given the maturity of the project and intention of most "regulars" of the project, I think we will have less problems with people cleaning things up than they introduce. Happy to reduce red tape. Also happy for you to formally take ownership of 0.3 that makes things easier. Please let me know if there are any technical challenges (access?) that stand in your way. I have made you an admin on the repo if that helps with anything. |
None that I'm currently aware of, I'll try the next release process after we get a few things in and see if anything comes up. We're probably the only ones opening PRs against v0.3-branch, I can ask another Agodan to be a reviewer for these. I guess at least one of us would need to be an approver for Prow to do the merges without asking one of you. |
Feel free to add more contributors/reviewers/approvers as needed. |
|
/hold cancel |
|
/lgtm |
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: ches, woop The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
|
Thanks for the quick reviews! |
4 participants
What this PR does / why we need it:
Backports #686 to
v0.3-branch. Also backports #410, which was a final missing piece for v0.3 after #407—this fixes the Prow job forpublish-docker-imageson the branch.I have possibly a few of these housekeeping-ish things that I want to bring in internally, and as much as possible / whenever valuable for mainline Feast I'm trying to do things as upstream master => upstream backport => bring backport in-house. If PR reviews and so forth become a burden though, if you aren't supporting any v0.3 deployments yourselves anymore, I'm happy for us to "formally" take ownership of the maintenance branch in whatever ways make sense.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: