Add more OWNER files

Add more OWNER files

R=adamk@chromium.org, mstarzinger@chromium.org, yangguo@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: https://crrev.com/063920e2e4a975ac01cc5284a711de2c98e03bde
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#32655}

[Michael Starzinger, 2015-11-26 17:16:38]

LGTM from my end. Please wait for approval from other reviewers.

[Yang, 2015-11-26 17:39:07]

On 2015/11/26 17:16:38, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> LGTM from my end. Please wait for approval from other reviewers.

lgtm.

[Benedikt Meurer, 2015-11-30 10:26:24]

bmeurer@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bmeurer@chromium.org

[Benedikt Meurer, 2015-11-30 10:26:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1477093003/diff/1/src/js/OWNERS
File src/js/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1477093003/diff/1/src/js/OWNERS#newcode7
src/js/OWNERS:7: 
How about adding verwaest@ and bmeurer@ here?

[adamk, 2015-11-30 19:01:06]

lgtm once littledan is added/replaced.

Though see my question about ast/OWNERS.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1477093003/diff/1/src/ast/OWNERS
File src/ast/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1477093003/diff/1/src/ast/OWNERS#newcode1
src/ast/OWNERS:1: set noparent
Does an AST owners file even make much sense? I'm not convinced one can make an
interesting change in here without making changes across the code base: adding
new nodes requires touching the compilers, modifying existing nodes would
involve touching at least the parser and maybe a compiler too.

Standalone Scope changes I could see, but I'd argue that scopes.cc and
scopeinfo.cc just barely belong in this directory.

If we do decide to keep it, I'd add littledan, since he's been doing lots of
work here for harmony scoping and has plenty of experience in this area.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1477093003/diff/1/src/parsing/OWNERS
File src/parsing/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1477093003/diff/1/src/parsing/OWNERS#newcode4
src/parsing/OWNERS:4: dehrenberg@chromium.org
You want "littledan@chromium.org" here.

[rossberg, 2015-12-07 12:32:37]

The CQ bit was checked by rossberg@chromium.org

[rossberg, 2015-12-07 12:32:38]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from adamk@chromium.org,
mstarzinger@chromium.org, yangguo@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1477093003/#ps20001
(title: "Comments")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-07 12:32:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1477093003/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1477093003/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-07 12:51:53]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-07 12:52:19]

Description was changed from

==========
Add more OWNER files

R=adamk@chromium.org, mstarzinger@chromium.org, yangguo@chromium.org
BUG=
==========

to

==========
Add more OWNER files

R=adamk@chromium.org, mstarzinger@chromium.org, yangguo@chromium.org
BUG=

Committed: https://crrev.com/063920e2e4a975ac01cc5284a711de2c98e03bde
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#32655}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-12-07 12:52:20]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/063920e2e4a975ac01cc5284a711de2c98e03bde
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#32655}

[rossberg, 2015-12-07 13:22:58]

On 2015/11/30 19:01:06, adamk wrote:
> Does an AST owners file even make much sense? I'm not convinced one can make
an
> interesting change in here without making changes across the code base: adding
> new nodes requires touching the compilers, modifying existing nodes would
> involve touching at least the parser and maybe a compiler too.

That is very much a reason _for_ having owners, not against -- and to limit the
set of owners to people who know various parts of the system well enough. ;)

[adamk, 2015-12-07 19:15:49]

On 2015/12/07 13:22:58, rossberg wrote:
> On 2015/11/30 19:01:06, adamk wrote:
> > Does an AST owners file even make much sense? I'm not convinced one can make
> an
> > interesting change in here without making changes across the code base:
adding
> > new nodes requires touching the compilers, modifying existing nodes would
> > involve touching at least the parser and maybe a compiler too.
> 
> That is very much a reason _for_ having owners, not against -- and to limit
the
> set of owners to people who know various parts of the system well enough. ;)

What I was saying is that the AST tends to be the least-interesting part of such
changes, and that the OWNERS reviewing the other parts of such changes will
likely be able to do a better job of determining if the AST changes make sense
than the AST OWNERS themselves.

But as with all this OWNERS stuff it'll be easier to see how it works _with_ an
owners file.

[Benedikt Meurer, 2015-12-09 10:44:15]

Seriously? Why did we add random people w/o even telling them? Ulan wasn't even
aware that he's owner for example plus he doesn't care about src/js.

[adamk, 2015-12-09 18:35:36]

On 2015/12/09 10:44:15, Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> Seriously? Why did we add random people w/o even telling them? Ulan wasn't
even
> aware that he's owner for example plus he doesn't care about src/js.

Seems like we need to figure out an actual process for OWNERs. We could start
with something like Chromium's bullet points:
https://www.chromium.org/developers/owners-files (under "Who should be in an
OWNERS file?").