Ugh. I suggest that ComDev write up some text explaining why this is a
horrible idea :-(
https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
+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
>
--
I like: Like Like - The
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
The feature doesn't seem all that different to me than automatic assignment
to component owners in JIRA or other bug trackers, which are useful for
distributing triage. I'm not sure how I feel about requiring coffee reviews
from owners, as a hard prerequisite, though.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 04:19 Gr
s/coffee/code/
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017, 08:37 Christopher wrote:
> The feature doesn't seem all that different to me than automatic
> assignment to component owners in JIRA or other bug trackers, which are
> useful for distributing triage. I'm not sure how I feel about requiring
> coffee reviews fro
> 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-code-owners
>
>
>> Pardon my ignorance, but wh
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 explaining why this is a
>>> horrible idea :-(
>>>
>>> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code
+1 Shane. That explains my exact take on it as well.
Regards,
KAM
On July 7, 2017 9:39:51 AM EDT, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>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 t
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
si
I think that it is great for projects to use multiple mechanisms to ensure
quick review. This is a fine mechanism.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> Aside from the strong "owner" language, do you think this is a bad idea?
> Seems like picking some default reviewers to look a
10 matches
Mail list logo
