#pulumiverse What's the correct practice to request a PR review in Pulumiverse? Shall I pick one of the available reviewers or is there a defined procedure for this? @limited-rainbow-51650

Eventually, we hope that every provider repo has 2 or more core maintainers. In that case, you ask each other for review. Until then, you can ask the current Pulumi governance board members for review: https://github.com/pulumiverse/.github/blob/main/governance/board.md

1. Okay, I selected you and @quiet-wolf-18467 from Board Member list for now. 2. Regarding maintainer: I'd volunteer as a maintainer for the time provider. Because I started the provider I think I should at least take the burden to maintain it.

Well, you already are the maintainer, given that you have direct access to that repo: https://github.com/pulumiverse/infra/blob/main/03-members/tmeckel.yaml#L3 😉

Quelle surprise! 😲 😄 👍🏼

@big-architect-71258 I’m gonna send you a PR in reverse to review, which fixes the GHA release workflow and configure the actual secrets on the repo. Will do this today.

@limited-rainbow-51650 watched it last weekend already 👍🏼 and I think the time provider should be ready for publishing. Especially it contains the required files (

_index.md

,

installation-configuration.md

) in the docs folder. And I added a SVG Logo that @shy-arm-32391 was so excited about in the video. Keywords are filled as well in the

schema.json

One example is provided as well. Or do you see anythink that had to be fixed right now?

No more fixes needed in the time repo itself, but you can already submit the PR on the pulumi/registry repo as talked about starting at minute 21 in the video.

@limited-rainbow-51650 ahh damn! you're right. That part ist still missing. Thanks for pointing out!

hey, one more caveat that @quiet-wolf-18467 and I discovered after our stream and should really add to the docs - you MUST have a tagged release that includes those two files - otherwise our auto-release GitHub Actions cannot pick up those changes. We need to add a better check for this, but in the meantime we'll have to rely on good citizenship 🙏 🙇‍♀️

@shy-arm-32391 Because I was never really satisfied with the boilerplate repository to create a Pulumi provider with the TF Bridge (my first experience was back in 2019 when I created the first version of the Azure DevOps Provider for Pulumi, ), I created a cookiecutter template that automatically generates everything needed by answering easy questions on the command line https://github.com/tmeckel/pulumi-tf-provider-cookiecutter After watching the video with @quiet-wolf-18467last weekend I took the chance to add the required doc files to it as well. The template is even capable of handling the heavy lifting to reference the Tf provider as a Go module. What is sometimes really cumbersome because many TF providers have invalid module names in the go.mod files and thus a replacement in the Pulumi provider go.mod is required. In addition the template can create a shim if the TF provider is hidden inside an internal package, what makes the provider implementation private and thus can't be directly referenced via TF bridge. I also created an issue on Github inside the boilerplate repository if Pulumi is interessted to replace the boilerplate repository with the cookiecutter template (https://github.com/pulumi/pulumi-tf-provider-boilerplate/issues/86)m @broad-dog-22463 wanted to reply with details but as all the staff at Pulumi I guess he's overwhelmed with other stuff to do.

Hi @big-architect-71258 we are still working on the design document of the large changes we are making to these types of sysmtes

@broad-dog-22463 great to hear 👍🏼 ❤️