On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:50 AM Robert Burke <rob...@frantil.com> wrote: > > Either we keep OWNERS and have the review bot use them, or we remove them and > use the reviews bot config as the single source of truth.
+1. And I don't see any reason we're going to be any better at keeping them up to date than we have in the past, so let's just remove them. > The bot is less likely to go out of date since it's at least active in how it > behaves. I agree it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of things getting > out of date, but other than inactive folks officially, actively bowing out of > the project, I don't know there's anything we can do. > > IMO folks who aren't active but are still getting emails and review requests > should be incentivised to redirect requests to new owners or at least active > members. > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 9:13 AM Alexey Romanenko <aromanenko....@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I’m generally agree with this (initially that was a good intention imho) but >> what could be an alternative for this? Review bot also may assign reviewers >> that are no longer active on the project. >> >> — >> Alexey >> >> >> On 8 Aug 2023, at 16:55, Danny McCormick via dev <dev@beam.apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hey everyone, I'd like to propose getting rid of OWNERS files from the Beam >> repo. Right now, I don't think they are serving a meaningful purpose: >> >> - Many OWNERS files are outdated and point to people who are no longer >> actively involved in the project (examples: 1, 2, 3, there are many more) >> - Many dependencies don't have owners assigned >> - Many major directories function fine without OWNERS files >> - We lack sufficient documentation of what OWNERS files mean >> (https://s.apache.org/beam-owners is not helpful and I couldn't find other >> resources) >> - We now have the review bot to automatically assign reviewers based on >> areas of ownership. That has proven more likely to stay up to date. >> >> Given all of these, I don't see any obvious usefulness for OWNERS files. >> Please chime in if you disagree (or agree). If there are no objections I'll >> assume silent consensus and remove them next week. >> >> Thanks, >> Danny >> >>
