Erik Westra

Is that just due to the amount of work required, or are you envisioning breaking changes with it as well?

> Not sure if necessarily breaking changes (there is a path for it to not be breaking), but at least my own will is for us to stop maintaining in-tree...

Did you wanna close this? Or keep it for reference for the providers we do intend to keep in org / in tree

I can take this

@gusfcarvalho Do we want one label LGTM (signalling the PR has been approved by a reviewer), or do we want one for each specialty track, incase there is a PR...

Ow and follow-up question do we want to @ mention the maintainers team once that is done?

Actually on second thought, i'm seeing we have a reviewer role for each individual provider so that seems like it might be cumbersome to add an lgtm label for each...

> one LGTM label sounds good enough, at least for now. I'm not too concerned with providers for now as if things go well, we will out-of-tree them :) sounds...

sounds good I'll put an PR up for that shortly then

Okay almost done working on this, there is a few considerations to make and I'm trying to avoid having too much logic within the nested yaml struct, but I will...