Skip to content

[chore](build) Require code-owner approval for branch-4.2 PRs - #68014

Open
hello-stephen wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
ci/protect-branch-4.2-code-owner
Open

hello-stephen wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
ci/protect-branch-4.2-code-owner

Conversation

@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: N/A

Problem Summary: Apache Doris manages branch protection through the ASF-synced .asf.yaml. The branch-4.1 entry requires one approving Code Owner review and dismisses stale approvals, but branch-4.2 is absent and currently reports protected: false even though its CODEOWNERS file contains * @yiguolei. Add the same review policy for branch-4.2 so its PRs require yiguolei approval once ASF synchronizes the merged configuration.

This PR intentionally adds only the requested review gate. It does not invent a required CI context list for 4.2; that should be added separately after checking which 4.2 contexts are consistently published.

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

  • Test: Manual test — YAML parses; asserted 4.2 review rule equals 4.1 review rule; git diff --check passed.
  • Behavior changed: Yes — branch-4.2 PR merge requirements after ASF sync.
  • Does this need documentation: No

### What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: N/A

Problem Summary: branch-4.2 has a sole CODEOWNER but is not protected, so its pull requests can be merged without code-owner approval. Add the same required review policy used by branch-4.1 to the ASF-managed protected branch configuration.

### Release note

None

### Check List (For Author)

- Test: Manual test — parsed .asf.yaml and asserted the branch-4.2 review policy matches branch-4.1; git diff --check passed.
- Behavior changed: Yes — branch-4.2 PRs will require code-owner approval after ASF sync.
- Does this need documentation: No
@hello-stephen

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

hello-stephen added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2026
## Background
Release-branch GitHub Actions are frequently queued, including redundant
post-merge runs and a thirdparty change detector on unrelated PRs.

## Changes
- Remove the duplicate Check Large File push trigger; keep
pull_request_target.
- Remove the legacy Need_2_Approval workflow. The Code Owner approval
policy is tracked separately in #68014; this PR does not change it.
- Start Build Third Party Libraries on PRs only when its relevant inputs
change. Keep workflow_dispatch and issue_comment triggers.

## Scope note
Code Checks is unchanged; its push trigger optimization is deferred for
separate review.

External Regression's regression-test/pipeline/external/conf/fe.conf is
excluded from both the PR entry filter and the old focused test filter.
A change to that file alone will no longer trigger Thirdparty Script
Test or its ADBC JNI assertion. The assertion still runs when a
thirdparty-related change triggers the script test; this PR does not
move it to another workflow.

## Validation
- actionlint passed for all edited workflow files (excluding
pre-existing inline shellcheck and old-runner warnings).
- git diff --check passed.
- The currently configured branch-4.2 governance does not require these
Actions as checks; this PR does not change that policy.

No TeamCity pipeline or branch governance configuration is changed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant