-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 144
Use ncu-team sync
to maintain list of members in WGs/teams' README
#61
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
ncu-team sync
to maintain list of members in WGs/teamsncu-team sync
to maintain list of members in WGs/teams' README
Some WG/teams have emails of the members listed in their README, while some don't. A lot of people don't put their emails in the Github profiles, which is why IMO we don't really need to list the emails in the README other than in the node core (where there are actual code gets committed in the history with a committer email). People update their emails from time to time, and having the email addresses scattered around in different READMEs means they will need to raise a lot of PRs to update those. If someone wants to know how to contact a member they can just go to their github profile page, which I believe people will usually take time to update. |
@joyeecheung Should this stay open? If so, can we get a task list of what needs to happen? |
@Trott I think this can stay open for a little longer. Task list:
|
@joyeecheung I'm closing stuff that's been inactive for over a year, but if you want to keep this open, just re-open. No justification needed! |
Hi all, node-core-utils @ v1.10.0 just released with a new tool
ncu-team
that automatically updates the list of members in a document with members of a Github team. See the documentation for details.I have already opened nodejs/diagnostics#147 to use this since the original idea came from @mhdawson in nodejs/diagnostics#127 (comment) . I propose we start using it for other teams and WGs so we can better keep these membership stuff in sync.
BTW: the bot idea in nodejs/diagnostics#127 (comment) is going to be harder to implement because that requires an organizational webhook, which we currently do not allow.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: