; part due to the way GitHub doesn’t provide enough information to determine
> who is actually needed for review.
>
> From: Anthony Baker
> Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 9:34 AM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
> ⚠ External
? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email
I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen
several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the
CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to those
most suited to provide
+1 to Anthony's suggestion.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:59 AM Joris Melchior
wrote:
> +1 to Anthony’s suggestion.
>
> From: Anthony Baker
> Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 12:34 PM
> To: dev@geode.apache.org
> Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
> ⚠ Externa
+1 to Anthony’s suggestion.
From: Anthony Baker
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 12:34 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email
I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen
several requests for timely
+1 to Anthony's suggestion
From: Donal Evans
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 10:46 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email
+1 to Anthony's suggestion
I strongly supported the idea behind CODEOWNERS when it was originally
to review PRs that I may not actually
have context for or expert-level understanding of.
From: Anthony Baker
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:33 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email
I realize
: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 9:45 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)
⚠ External Email
+1 for getting rid of CODEOWNERS.
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
>
> ⚠ External Email
>
> I realize that this is a thread hijack
+1 for getting rid of CODEOWNERS.
> On Jun 29, 2022, at 9:33 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
>
> ⚠ External Email
>
> I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen
> several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the
> CODEOWNERS goals were
I realize that this is a thread hijack, but hopefully a useful one. I’ve seen
several requests for timely reviews in recent months. I think that the
CODEOWNERS goals were important and laudable—directing review requests to those
most suited to provide oversight—but the implementation has been
