I think establishing MAINTAINERS/OWNERS files is another valid way of doing this.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Joshua Cohen <jco...@twopensource.com> wrote: > +1, I was thinking about this over the weekend. > > Mesos has recently been discussing adding MAINTAINERS files across the code > to document who should be informed about changes within. I'm not sure > Aurora is ready to go that far since generally it will either include all > active committers or result in a subset of committers being on the hook for > all reviews from first time contributors. > > Establishing Shepherds seems like a good compromise. > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Zameer Manji <zma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > With the increased interest in Aurora, the project has started to receive > > more contributions from non-committers. By default we do not populate the > > "People" line in the review, meaning there is no responsible person to > > ensure we accept or reject contributions. > > > > I think we should establish Shepherds, who are responsible for dealing > with > > reviews that don't have established reviewers. The responsibility could > be > > limited to finding committers who are willing to review the code. > > > > What do people think about this idea? > > > > -- > > Zameer Manji > > > -- Zameer Manji
