[DRAFT] Add a CODEOWNERS file designating oversight of certain Evolution repo content to relevant teams #2938
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds a GitHub
CODEOWNERS
file to this repo, assigning ownership and oversight responsibilities for certain content to relevant teams. But (importantly) it leaves the top-level/proposals
directory without a specific owner.Motivation: This originally came up because some of us on the Testing Workgroup would like to have greater awareness of PRs which modify proposals and other files related to Swift Testing. When I discovered that there was no
CODEOWNERS
file I drafted the file posted here, which assigns ownership of a few other important files and directories in the repo to people or teams I believe are responsible for them as well. The exact owners listed are of course up for discussion!My understanding of
CODEOWNERS
files in GitHub (per documentation) is that this file alone will not prevent anyone from landing a PR, even if none of the code owners listed have approved it. To begin enforcing such a rule, this repo would need to enable branch protection, and I'm unsure whether that is enabled currently. So this PR, on its own, is not intended to restrict any PRs, although that is a policy we could consider separately.