Add automated PR reviewer rotation system

[gursewak1997]

• Add GitHub Action workflow for automatic reviewer assignment
• Create Python script that reads reviewers from MAINTAINERS.md
• Implement 3-week sprint-based rotation cycle
• Preserve existing reviewer assignments (manual/GitHub auto)
• Add configuration for start date and rotation cycle

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an automated reviewer rotation system, which is a great addition. The implementation is mostly solid, but I've identified a critical bug in the reviewer selection logic that would prevent it from working as intended. There are also a few high-severity issues related to error handling that could cause the script to crash unexpectedly. My review provides specific suggestions to fix these problems and improve the script's robustness and maintainability.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an automated reviewer rotation system, which is a great addition. The implementation is solid, with a Python script handling the logic and a YAML file for configuration. My review focuses on improving the script's robustness, error handling, and code structure. I've suggested making the reviewer extraction from MAINTAINERS.md more resilient to format changes, using stderr for error messages, avoiding broad exception clauses, and refactoring to prevent redundant calculations. These changes will make the script more maintainable and reliable.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

The pull request introduces an automated PR reviewer rotation system using a Python script and a GitHub Action workflow. The script reads reviewers from MAINTAINERS.md, calculates the current reviewer based on a 3-week sprint-based rotation cycle, and assigns the reviewer to the PR. The configuration includes a start date and rotation cycle. I've identified some areas for improvement, including precision in date calculations and error handling in subprocess calls.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an automated reviewer rotation system, which is a great initiative. The implementation is mostly solid, with a Python script to handle the logic and a YAML file for configuration. I've identified a couple of areas for improvement to make the script more robust and ensure correct error handling. Specifically, the method for parsing reviewers from MAINTAINERS.md could be made more resilient to file changes, and the error handling for when the gh CLI is not found should be made consistent to prevent silent failures in the CI/CD pipeline. My detailed comments and suggestions are below.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces automation for assigning reviewers based on a rotation schedule. The Python script is a solid foundation. The review comments focus on improving the script's robustness and maintainability.

[gursewak1997]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an automated reviewer rotation system, which is a great initiative. The implementation includes a Python script to calculate the current reviewer based on a configurable rotation schedule and a MAINTAINERS.md file. The code is well-structured, but I have identified a few areas for improvement regarding robustness and correctness. My main concerns are the fragile parsing of the maintainers file and the use of timezone-naive datetimes, which could lead to incorrect behavior. Additionally, the error handling could be improved by raising exceptions from functions instead of calling sys.exit() directly. This would make the functions more reusable and testable, and centralize exit logic in the main function. I've provided specific suggestions to address these points.

[gursewak1997]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an automated reviewer rotation system using a Python script and a GitHub Action. The script reads reviewers from MAINTAINERS.md and assigns them based on a configurable weekly rotation. The implementation is well-structured, but I've identified a critical bug in the date handling that will cause the script to crash, and a medium-severity issue regarding the error handling flow that could cause confusion when debugging. My review includes suggestions to fix these issues.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an automated reviewer rotation system, which is a great addition for managing PRs. The implementation consists of a Python script to handle the logic and a YAML file for configuration.

My review focuses on improving the maintainability and robustness of the Python script. I've suggested two main improvements:

1. Refactoring the duplicated code for calling the gh CLI tool into a shared helper function.
2. Making the regular expression for parsing usernames from MAINTAINERS.md more specific to improve its reliability.

The overall approach is solid, and the script includes good error handling and clear logging. The changes are well-structured.

[gursewak1997]

/gemini review

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces an automated reviewer rotation system using a Python script and a GitHub Action. The implementation is solid, with good use of type hints and error handling. My feedback focuses on improving code clarity and maintainability by removing redundant code, clarifying a function's return type, and replacing a magic number with a more descriptive approach.

[gursewak1997]

/gemini review

[cgwalters]

(Probably worth having a local AI agent do the review before putting up PRs, I only sometimes remember do that)

[gemini-code-assist]

Warning

Gemini encountered an error creating the review. You can try again by commenting /gemini review.

[gursewak1997]

(Probably worth having a local AI agent do the review before putting up PRs, I only sometimes remember do that)

I do use the local agent, but it keeps coming up with suggestions even after initial feedback. I’m not sure it’s the right approach; it never seems fully convinced, and it’s a bit frustrating that it doesn’t provide all its suggestions in one go.

[cgwalters]

The standard way I test Github Actions is to push to my fork's main branch; did you try that?

[gursewak1997]

The standard way I test Github Actions is to push to my fork's main branch; did you try that?

Spent some time on this only to realize that GitHub doesn’t allow requesting reviewers on PRs within your own fork; not even yourself, which makes testing a bit tricky.
Example Workflow:

• https://github.com/gursewak1997/bootc/actions/runs/16789052288/job/47546872516 (trying to add myself)
• https://github.com/gursewak1997/bootc/actions/runs/16788150829/job/47545807264 (when trying to add Chris as reviewer)

[cgwalters]

So recently I created https://github.com/bootc-dev/ci-sandbox/ which I was using to test some GHA stuff but it's intended for stuff like this, do you have write access there?