Hi Karthik, If the purpose of “owners” is to make this change that is fine. Otherwise having official owners of code is not really the Apache Way. Identifying people who know a portion best is fine, but the whole project and Apache “own” the code now for the public good.
A lot of the time projects actually remove Author tags … Perhaps Reviewers would be better than Owners. Regards, Dave > On Apr 5, 2018, at 3:02 PM, Karthik Ramasamy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ashvin - > > It could be good to designate owners for different areas - let me come up > with a list by the end of the today tonight. > > cheers > /karthik > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Ning Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Make sense to me. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:19 AM, Ashvin A <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Devs, >>> >>> PR 2840 renames com.twitter package to org.apache. This change touches >> more >>> than *2,127* files. Is there a test strategy for this change which >> updates >>> everything? I believe just depending on unit and integration tests may be >>> insufficient. >>> >>> Also I am hoping git history will be preserved. >>> >>> Should we create a coarse checklist and take ownership of manual >>> verification of individual components? >>> >>> 1. Examples >>> 2. Heron UI >>> 1. Metrics >>> 2. Logs >>> 3. API server >>> 4. Heron client >>> 5. Docker >>> 6. Schedulers >>> 1. Aurora >>> 2. Kubernetes >>> 3. Yarn >>> 4. .. >>> 7. Python >>> 8. Heron Tracker >>> 9. Heron metrics cache >>> 10. Heron Health manager >>> 11. ... >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ashvin >>> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
