Any chance there's some confusion in terminology here. When referring to CODEOWNERS, we're talking about the GitHub magic file and it's functionality.
That's not about laying claim, but e.g setting required reviewers in a pull request. If you set code owners to repo level for PMC and PR required review from code owners + 2 reviews. Anyone can contribute to any part of the code, any committer (Maintainer) can merge PRs, after 2 PR approvals of which at least 1 comes from a PMC member. On Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 23:42 Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > It will be a main task to figure out how to evolve such a complex > > project and how to solve the friction between keeping stability but > > also figuring out ways and places to evolve. The only way to get that > > done is to find enough shoulders to spread the load. Some mechanism > > like CODEOWNERS will be needed to figure out who is responsible (even > > if overall ownership is shared, of course) for which part of the code. > > Saying that everyone is responsible for everything as a whole is not > > realistic. It's also not a realistic expectation for anyone to be able > > to keep track of everything that might go on in all parts of the code. > > The project as a whole is responsible, and that is a shared responsibility > of everyone. A project must follow the Apache grouping of (P)PMC members, > committers and contributors/users. This is one of the graduation > requirements. As I previously said, the use of CODEOWNERs is not > encouraged. You can set expectations on how people should contribute to > different parts of the project and document them, but all committers will > have access to the entire codebase. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
