Just to clarify:
I don't support that specific people should "own" a directory or
section of code,
Poor choice of words on my part. I seem to pick words that trigger
the wrong responses. We are in agreement int the concept. By "own",
I meant in the sense that businesses use the term: When a business
encourages you to take ownership of code, they a referring only to
taking responsibility for the integrity of a body of code. Certainly
businesses don't think you really own anything.
Ultimately, what we need is for the right eyes to look at the code
before it is committed. People who do not have a deep understanding of a
section of code should defer the review and merge to other people who do
have that understanding. That is a courtesy and not required by any
tool. It is just good responsible behavior
For example, whenever I see modifications to STM32, i.MXRT, or Kinetis I
automatically select DavidS as the reviewer. He/PX4 has a vested
interest as well as deep understanding of those architectures.
Similarly, I would hope that any changes under sched would include me as
a reviewer.
