On 07/07/2017 09:39 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > 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.
Perhaps change it to COOKIELICKER instead? Every project I've worked in where someone "owned" a particular feature/file/method/document, that thing has ended up either getting neglected (because nobody else was willing to touch it) or caused fights (because someone else *was* willing to touch it). So, yeah, terrible idea for anything but one-person projects. It's basically putting a sign on something that says "no other ideas welcome." FWIW, I added it to my list of things to blog about, but I don't know if I'll get to it quickly enough for my response to be timely and relevant. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
