On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:23 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
>
> > 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.
I didn't take it the wrong way.
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: W
One thing we can do is automatically apply labels to pull requests via the
CI system. So if something changes in certain folder gets a multiple
reviewer label and a comment in the PR.
Still a social solution, but I think it would nudge people into the right
direction.
I like the idea.
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: W
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:47 PM Gregory Nutt wrote:
> In the past, we talked about not all changes being equal and that
> changes within some directories are more sensitive than changes to
> others. We discussed the notion of an "owner" of each top level
> directory that needed to approve any chan
One thing we can do is automatically apply labels to pull requests via the
CI system. So if something changes in certain folder gets a multiple
reviewer label and a comment in the PR.
Still a social solution, but I think it would nudge people into the right
direction.
--Brennan
On Mon, Apr 6, 20
The only project I know that does something similar (successfully) is
subversion and it's by social convention.
Social conventions would be the preferred way to handle this. But that
requires some education for all committers to understand and support
those conventions. That can be diffic
Justin,
Thanks, that's cool to know.
-adam
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:43 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The only project I know that does something similar (successfully) is
> subversion and it's by social convention.
>
> Please consider not using CODEOWNERS as people don’t own the parts of t
Hi,
The only project I know that does something similar (successfully) is
subversion and it's by social convention.
Please consider not using CODEOWNERS as people don’t own the parts of the code
at the ASF. It can also cause long term issues and discourage
contribution.Tjhere are other issues,
Greg,
Github appears to have Code Owners:
"You can use a CODEOWNERS file to define individuals or teams that are
responsible for code in a repository."
"Code owners are automatically requested for review when someone opens a
pull request that modifies code that they own. Code owners are not
autom
10 matches
Mail list logo
