I'm fine with removing CODEOWNERS completely. However, AFAIK CODEOWNERS allows selective attribution by regex or something like that.
How about we keep CODEOWNERS but link committers to code areas voluntarily? I mean each committer could personally make a PR against CODEOWNERS to get notified on changes where desired, with default being "empty". Absence from CODEOWNERS will not be an excuse for missing out on raising concerns with PRs, though. Presence in CODEOWNERS for a specific source sub-tree will not be an obligation to review. (no change from current practice, I suppose). If a contributor notices that a PR lacks timely reviews a dev email could be raised for awareness. WDYT? Thanks, Dmitri. On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:39 PM Eric Maynard <eric.w.mayn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree that the automatic tagging is getting out of hand, thanks for > raising this. I think just deleting CODEOWNERS is a pretty good idea. > > Once that's done however, I worry that a potential contributor might not > know who to tag on a PR and might either just pick someone randomly or be > stuck waiting for someone to happen to see the PR. It would be good if we > could somehow create different teams you can add for review, or maybe tag > different people on the PR based on the label added to it. Or, maybe we > could keep CODEOWNERS as an opt-in thing. > > --EM > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 9:27 AM Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > as of today, every committer to Polaris is mentioned in the CODEOWNERS > > file. This forces every committer to receive an email for every PR > > creation, every comment, every merge and so on - quite a lot of emails > > every day. IMHO it's already quite difficult to prioritize those or even > > figure out mentions. > > > > Therefore, I propose to delete the CODEOWNERS file entirely. This leaves > > everybody still the option to subscribe to all these messages via GitHub > > settings or the issues@ / commits@ mailing lists. But that's an opt-in > > for those who want it - contrary for those who do not want all emails > > without, but not have an out-out. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Robert > > > > >
