You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
CODEOWNERS documentation claims that a user needs at least read access, but GitHub's built in linter claims the user needs write access #18984
What part(s) of the article would you like to see updated?
The people you choose as code owners must have read permissions for the repository. When the code owner is a team, that team must be visible and it must have write permissions, even if all the individual members of the team already have write permissions directly, through organization membership, or through another team membership.
I read this as:
Only teams with at least write permissions can be listed
Individual users can be listed as long as they have at least read permissions
The GitHub linter throws a This CODEOWNERS file contains errors message, for my users with at least read access, and says:
Unknown owner: make sure @octocat exists and has write access to the repository
The problem is:
The user exists
The user has Outside Collaborator permissions for at least read
Other users with triage permissions also get flagged
The documentation states that read permissions is enough, even though GitHub flags it saying that write permissions are required for users
I can't tell whether the docs are wrong or the GitHub linter is wrong. This is why I'm raising this issue here.
For documentation purposes: It looks like the error was in the documentation, which has since been fixed. It does mean that only users with Write access can be used in the CODEOWNERS file.
New docs content:
The people you choose as code owners must have write permissions for the repository. When the code owner is a team, that team must be visible and it must have write permissions, even if all the individual members of the team already have write permissions directly, through organization membership, or through another team membership.
Is there a route I can take for a feature request? With our open source project, we would love to be able to have community members with explicit Read or Triage permissions to be able to be assigned to review PRs (since I thought that is what Triage was for??).
👋🏻 @damon-atkins, the GitHub community discussions are owned by a different team. (We only own this repo and docs.github.com.) 💖 I'm sure the appropriate team will review the post shortly! 😊
Activity
cmwilson21 commentedon Jul 12, 2022
@ScriptAutomate Thanks so much for opening an issue! I'll triage this for the team to take a look 👀
Benson665 commentedon Jul 13, 2022
lecoursen commentedon Jul 28, 2022
Thanks @ScriptAutomate, by coincidence this was actually just fixed internally and should be published shortly. 🙇🏻
ScriptAutomate commentedon Aug 17, 2022
Thanks!
For documentation purposes: It looks like the error was in the documentation, which has since been fixed. It does mean that only users with Write access can be used in the CODEOWNERS file.
New docs content:
Is there a route I can take for a feature request? With our open source project, we would love to be able to have community members with explicit Read or Triage permissions to be able to be assigned to review PRs (since I thought that is what Triage was for??).
damon-atkins commentedon Aug 18, 2022
It would be nice to able to have people who can not merge code (write), be apart of the review/notification/approval process for a PR.
lecoursen commentedon Aug 18, 2022
Yes! You can provide product feedback here. Thanks for helping us improve GitHub! 💖
ScriptAutomate commentedon Aug 18, 2022
Related feature request has been opened:
damon-atkins commentedon Aug 19, 2022
ScriptAutomate has submitted the request, @lecoursen can you please ensure it has the correct labels. Many thanks.
lecoursen commentedon Aug 19, 2022
👋🏻 @damon-atkins, the GitHub community discussions are owned by a different team. (We only own this repo and docs.github.com.) 💖 I'm sure the appropriate team will review the post shortly! 😊
ScriptAutomate commentedon Oct 31, 2024
I didn't realize there was an earlier feature request for the same thing, from back in 2019. That I'd add a backlink here: