Code owners must be committers

[pawelrutkaq]

Notes for Reviewer

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

• PR title is short, expressive and meaningful
• Commits are properly organized
• Relevant issues are linked in the References section
• Tests are conducted
• Unit tests are added

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

• Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
• Unit tests have been written for new behavior
• Public API is documented
• PR title describes the changes

Post-review Checklist for the PR Author

• All open points are addressed and tracked via issues

References

Closes #

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.3.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: e173c56f-5017-4af3-aaf7-d82760d40f8c
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
DEBUG: Rule 'rust_qnx8_toolchain+' indicated that a canonical reproducible form can be obtained by modifying arguments integrity = "sha256-eQOopREOYCL5vtTb6c1cwZrql4GVrJ1FqgxarQRe1xs="
DEBUG: Repository rust_qnx8_toolchain+ instantiated at:
  <builtin>: in <toplevel>
Repository rule http_archive defined at:
  /home/runner/.bazel/external/bazel_tools/tools/build_defs/repo/http.bzl:394:31: in <toplevel>
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'rules_python', the root module requires module version rules_python@1.4.1, but got rules_python@1.5.1 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'bazel_skylib', the root module requires module version bazel_skylib@1.7.1, but got bazel_skylib@1.8.1 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'rules_cc', the root module requires module version rules_cc@0.1.1, but got rules_cc@0.2.8 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'aspect_rules_lint', the root module requires module version aspect_rules_lint@1.0.3, but got aspect_rules_lint@1.10.2 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'buildifier_prebuilt', the root module requires module version buildifier_prebuilt@7.3.1, but got buildifier_prebuilt@8.2.0.2 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'googletest', the root module requires module version googletest@1.17.0.bcr.1, but got googletest@1.17.0.bcr.2 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 4 packages loaded
Loading: 4 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//:license-check': no such target '//:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package '' defined by /home/runner/work/logging/logging/BUILD
ERROR: no such target '//:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package '' defined by /home/runner/work/logging/logging/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 13.407s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

[github-actions]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

[antonkri]

@pawelrutkaq why do we need this? I am not an expert in the logging module, but the colleagues you want to remove

[rmaddikery]

CODEWONERS is an additional layer of scrutiny for the code parts for reviewing changes not necessarily require to be committers.
Take note that not all have committer rights who made the initial contributions, but that does not mean they will not get the rights forever! Until then we need reviews by them for changes in the code.

[pawelrutkaq]

As I said, now You think code owners works but they dont. Simply for github You have to be commiter (write right). So we may leave as is and there is basically NO CODE OWNERS - or only me @antonkri and @arsibo are ;) The others are ignored

So this is totally up to You guys, but dont think that you have github codeowners in the moment...

[antonkri]

Hey @pawelrutkaq, ok I see what you're saying. You can not define a code owner if he/she doesn't have write access to the repo. Could we agree, that we keep it as it is and we will do our best to get the committer rights for the colleagues?

[pawelrutkaq]

Hey @pawelrutkaq, ok I see what you're saying. You can not define a code owner if he/she doesn't have write access to the repo. Could we agree, that we keep it as it is and we will do our best to get the committer rights for the colleagues?

We can @antonkri but see here #37. Now there is NO code owners, since file is broken. So any commiter can approve PR. For me both options are fine, but I wanted to clarify it. Up to You guys

[antonkri]

Hey @pawelrutkaq, ok I see what you're saying. You can not define a code owner if he/she doesn't have write access to the repo. Could we agree, that we keep it as it is and we will do our best to get the committer rights for the colleagues?

We can @antonkri but see here #37. Now there is NO code owners, since file is broken. So any commiter can approve PR. For me both options are fine, but I wanted to clarify it. Up to You guys

First of all thanks for such a detailed analysis. I think you are right, let us do as you've proposed.