Chore/repository config foundation#24
Conversation
CODEOWNERS currently routes every path to the single primary maintainer. SME team handles for the L1, L2, Stack, docs and legal areas are pending confirmation by maintainers and will be applied in a follow-up PR. Signed-off-by: yreyricord <yoann.rey-ricord@acri-st.fr>
Weekly schedule covering Python (pyproject.toml per bps-* package) Signed-off-by: yreyricord <yoann.rey-ricord@acri-st.fr>
REUSE.toml covers legacy files in bulk by category. Signed-off-by: yreyricord <yoann.rey-ricord@acri-st.fr>
matteoaletti
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I only checked dependabot.yml file and left two comments/questions.
As far as licensing files are concerned I think that @rpiantanida should double check them as the current license files and credit files were written after iterating with ESA.
This PR does not replace the existing LICENSE.md / CREDITS.md iteration; it adds the REUSE manifest layer. I have just added the MIT and Apache Licences V2. |
…eekly PR Signed-off-by: Yoann Rey-Ricord <yoann.rey-ricord@acri-st.fr>
Signed-off-by: yreyricord <yoann.rey-ricord@acri-st.fr>
|
@matteoaletti I think it is ready to be merge :) |
I know this has been opened already for a while, however we are still discussing internally (@rpiantanida) because some things you would like to change in this or in the other PRs (like spdx headers) were discussed during the BPS project for a very long time. For example, if i recall correctly, SPDX were originally like you propose to change them and then it was decided to update them to the current version. Do you think it is possible to merge at least the dependabot independently in a different PR ? |
Yes it is possible, but depandabot is not really a priority for the 30th workshop, it doesn't matter if we don't have it right now, I would prefer waiting :) |
|
@yreyricord I've reviewed this PR, here below my comments:
As an additional general comment I think we should also involve in the review someone from ESA when the PR is about licencing or similar topics. During BPS development it was Antonio V. following this, maybe we could still involve him. |
Hello @rpiantanida I don't see your comments on the CODEOWNERS file.. Could you redirect me to them please ? |
|
@yreyricord there are 3 comments, you can see them here https://github.com/BioPAL/BPS/pull/24/changes/BASE..b0dddaf12451ae33e9c5f8a7b88a6a91dd78fe07 |
Hi @rpiantanida, I can see your summary comment in the Conversation tab, but I don't see the 3 inline comments on CODEOWNERS, could you please Submit your review so they become visible to everyone? Thanks! |
| /bps-l2a_processor/ @matteoaletti | ||
| /bps-l2b_agb_processor/ @matteoaletti | ||
| /bps-l2b_fd_processor/ @matteoaletti | ||
| /bps-l2b_fh_processor/ @matteoaletti |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yreyricord we should put Emanuele Giorgi for L2*-related stuff
| /bps-stack_binaries/ @matteoaletti | ||
| /bps-stack_cal_processor/ @matteoaletti | ||
| /bps-stack_coreg_processor/ @matteoaletti | ||
| /bps-stack_pre_processor/ @matteoaletti | ||
| /bps-stack_processor/ @matteoaletti |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yreyricord we should put Federico Boniardi for Stack-related stuff
|
|
||
| # ---- Documentation ----------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| /README.md @matteoaletti | ||
| /CREDITS.md @matteoaletti |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yreyricord probably it is better to keep the same person for LICENSE.md and CREDITS.md (that could be you)
|
@yreyricord sorry, my fault, I forgot to do it.. now you should see them! |
Linked issue
Closes #20
status:approved,good-first-issueorhelp-wanted.Being open in the backlog is not enough on its own: only these three labels mean the scope has been triaged and approved for implementation.
What this PR changes
Notes for reviewers @matteoaletti
The CODEOWNERS file currently routes almost every path to the primary maintainer as a placeholder, because I do not yet have the GitHub handles or team names for the Scientific Module Experts (SMEs) and area maintainers. Could you tell me who should own:
REUSE compliance is delivered via the manifest, not inline headers.
REUSE.toml covers all existing legacy files by category. A follow-up issue will track the progressive migration of legacy files to inline SPDX headers. Every new file added from this PR onwards is expected to carry inline headers.
Three files marked as third-party with a provisional licence.
eop.xsd, sar.xsd, and bio-l1-vrt.xsd are declared as OGC / CC-BY-4.0 on a provisional basis. We should discuss with ESA and confirm the actual licence before merge.
User-facing change
If yes, write one short release-note sentence here (it will be picked up in
CHANGELOG.md):Documentation
Tier rationale
The CI computes the tier automatically from the diff against the base branch. You do not assign it, but stating your expectation helps reviewers spot a mismatch quickly.
VERSIONpromoted tomain, designated heavy paths, manualrun_heavyFull rules:
.github/tier-policy.yml. Background: Contribution tiers in the contributor guide.AI assistance disclosure
What was generated (code, tests, documentation, commit messages): Commit messages / Comment
Checklist