Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-12 Thread sebb
On 12 July 2017 at 16:45, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 07/11/2017 06:21 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: >> >> On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >>> >>> I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than >>> "code review notifications" which can be useful to have. >> >> >> S

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-12 Thread Jacob Champion
On 07/11/2017 06:21 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than "code review notifications" which can be useful to have. Sure. And if it's used well, it could be great. But names are powerful th

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-11 Thread Jacques Le Roux
Le 11/07/2017 à 15:21, Rich Bowen a écrit : On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean it sucks? Nah I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-11 Thread Rich Bowen
On 07/11/2017 03:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: >> ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean >> it >> sucks? Nah > I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than > "code revi

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-11 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > ...Can it be abused? Certainly. Will it be abused? Probably. Does that mean it > sucks? Nah I still think the name sucks, in the end IIUC it's not much more than "code review notifications" which can be useful to have. -Bertrand -

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-10 Thread Jacob Champion
On 07/10/2017 06:03 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: 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

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-10 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
On 7/10/2017 1:07 PM, Joan Touzet wrote: Cookie licking is the term I prefer, too. It's very well defined here: http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking I had the very nicest employee with one only evil tendency. He loved to squish the cookie dough with the built in patterns so they w

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-10 Thread Joan Touzet
Cookie licking is the term I prefer, too. It's very well defined here: http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Cookie_Licking -Joan - Original Message - From: "Rich Bowen" To: dev@community.apache.org Sent: Monday, 10 July, 2017 9:03:33 AM Subject: Re: Introducing code own

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-10 Thread Rich Bowen
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 r

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Ted Dunning
> > P. Taylor Goetz wrote on 7/7/17 8:48 AM: > > >> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber wrote: > > >> > > >>> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein : > > >>> > > >>> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text ex

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Phil Sorber
t;> 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 i

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Kevin A. McGrail
Stein : >>>> >>>> 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 ig

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Shane Curcuru
>>> >>> 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

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread P. Taylor Goetz
> On Jul 7, 2017, at 6:59 AM, Erik Weber wrote: > >> fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein : >> >> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a >> horrible idea :-( >> >> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-cod

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Christopher
ng > coffee reviews from owners, as a hard prerequisite, though. > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 04:19 Greg Stein wrote: > >> Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a >> horrible idea :-( >> >> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners >> >

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Christopher
017, 04:19 Greg Stein wrote: > Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a > horrible idea :-( > > https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners >

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Erik Weber
fre. 7. jul. 2017 kl. 10.19 skrev Greg Stein : > 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? -- Erik

Re: Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Claude Warren
+1. Basically because I don't know why this is a horrible idea. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a > horrible idea :-( > > https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners > -

Introducing code owners

2017-07-07 Thread Greg Stein
Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a horrible idea :-( https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners