- From: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:52:20 +0000
- To: Reilly Grant <reillyg@google.com>, James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, "public-test-infra@w3.org" <public-test-infra@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAARdPYdp21XGfCQrECm3ik1EzJRGS-msPtbDG-3phfgB7Rp1ow@mail.gmail.com>
That SGTM as well. James, is your open PR just blocked on someone reviewing it, or are you awaiting objections? On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:53 PM Reilly Grant <reillyg@google.com> wrote: > I'm in favor of option 2 as it allows us to use the GitHub approved system > while both having an automated system for keeping the format of the file > correct and keeping the owner information in what I believe is a more > readable format. > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 07:26 James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> wrote: > >> GitHub recently added support for specifying code ownership [1]. This is >> roughly equivalent to the system we already have with OWNERS files in >> various directories, and which we use to get people notified on PRs they >> care about. However it differs in a couple of ways (some positive and >> some negative): >> >> * Some additional support in GitHub. We mostly don't care about this >> because we don't want to require that reviewers are listed in the >> *OWNERS file(s), but you get some additional icons (arguably misleading >> for our use case, since we aren't specifying any enforced ownership), >> and there might be more support in the future. >> >> * Add entries go in a single file with precedence rules rather than one >> file per directory with a flat list of owners. >> >> There are also some implementation differences: >> >> * The GitHub system puts most implementation complexity in GH rather >> than in services that we (or, rather, tobie) run. >> >> At this point we have several options: >> >> 1) Go all-in on the new feature. Make people edit the CODEOWNERS file to >> get notification for PRs. This has the advantage that we are doing the >> "GitHub approved thing". It has the disadvantage that the format of the >> file is IMO rather complex for our case where there are hundreds of >> directories all with different owners. I think we would have to invest >> in tooling to ensure that people didn't unintentionally edit the file in >> a way that clobbers other people's notification requests. >> >> 2) Use the new system, but with the input being OWNERS file from the new >> system, and a `wpt owners-update` tool that must be run to generate the >> CODEOWNERS file. This would avoid the problems with the new format, but >> would have the disadvantage of having to run a tool for each update. >> Travis could check the tool was run, but it would still require manual >> work. >> >> 3) Use the existing system. This would mean no changes, but also mean >> giving up the option to turn off the (parts of the) external bot we are >> using to recreate this feature. >> >> Opinions? >> >> I have an implementation of 2) at [2], which also includes a generated >> CODEOWNERS file [3] so you can get an idea of the complexity. I think >> that creating good tools to help with 1) would be harder, >> implementation-wise, but I don't know quite how hard. >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners >> [2] https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/6506 >> [3] >> >> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/blob/def1efdedfab188a4927cdd7e516491c01bd02ff/CODEOWNERS >> >>
Received on Monday, 31 July 2017 09:52:53 UTC