Docs process tweaks: update PR template & CODEOWNERS

[delucis]

Changes

• Add a line to the PR template, prompting to ping @withastro/maintainers-docs for docs feedback

• Update CODEOWNERS to make @withastro/maintainers-docs “owners” of all README.md files.

  What does this mean? File “owners” automatically receive a review request when a PR that touches their files come in. GitHub code owners docs →

  Could be a bit too coarse-grained — could pick up README.md files in tests or whatever if we have them, so happy to refine that if it turns out to be annoying.

Question

Do we want other files to auto-request a review from team docs? The types file we use to generate our config reference springs to mind. <-- Added types file in 2af6766

Testing

GitHub tooling tweaks only.

Docs

We’re here to help 🙌

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 7ff1fd8

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[sarah11918]

Do we want other files to auto-request a review from team docs? The types file we use to generate our config reference springs to mind.

Funnily enough, this pull request .md file is the kind of thing Docs could be pinged on, since it involves text? 😂 The types file for configuration reference does make sense, too.

[delucis]

Funnily enough, this pull request .md file is the kind of thing Docs could be pinged on

Could also make this even looser and say team docs are code owners for *.md. Almost certain to pull in excessive stuff though. I don’t think we need a hard fix for all Astro text.

We could NWTWWHB on this for now and then do a detailed audit where you list all things you’d like to be auto-pinged on and I figure out how to configure that.

Also worth noting that not being code owner doesn’t mean you can’t be pinged manually. I think it’s probably better to be slightly too narrow in scope than too wide for automated notifications as otherwise we’ll likely end up ignoring the review requests as “oh yeah that automated thing that is normally irrelevant”.

[sarah11918]

@delucis Yup, I think README's are a perfectly good place to start! I was just more amused than anything. Don't think we need a wider scope right now! But the types file, yes.

[matthewp]

👍