Aside from the strong "owner" language, do you think this is a bad idea? Seems like picking some default reviewers to look at some code they are both motivated to review and likely familiar with is generally a good idea. Would it be different if it were called "Potentially Interested Parties" or similar?
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:39 AM Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM: > >> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber <terbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a > >>> horrible idea :-( > >>> > >>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners > >> > >> > >>> Pardon my ignorance, but why is it a horrible idea? > > > > It would imply that some individuals have more authority, ownership, > etc. than others. In Apache projects all committers and PMC members are > equal. > > > > -Taylor > > To clarify: This is a bad idea... for *Apache* projects, or > community-led projects. It may be a fine idea for either hierarchical > projects (i.e. traditional corporate ones) or for single-maintainer / > BDFL run projects. So I'm not surprised Github added it, and I'll bet > some non-community style projects will think this is a great idea. > > I think "CODEOWNERS" is too strong a term; they should have been more > descriptive with CODEREVIEWERS or the like, since these aren't > necessarily owners of a file or project. That might be useful feedback > for github, but since they've already rolled it out, I doubt they'd > change it. > > > -- > > - Shane > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
