Allow anyone to approve trivial changes to BUILD.gn

Allow anyone to approve trivial changes to BUILD.gn

Many sub-directories already have OWNERS files, enabling teams to
approve changes to their code. Adding or removing files also requires
changing the BUILD.gn file, for which //content OWNERS approval is
currently required. It shouldn't be for such trivial changes.

BUG=

[Peter Beverloo, 2017-03-17 13:48:29]

Description was changed from

==========
Allow anyone to approve trivial changes to BUILD.gn

BUG=
==========

to

==========
Allow anyone to approve trivial changes to BUILD.gn

Many sub-directories already have OWNERS files, enabling teams to
approve changes to their code. Adding or removing files also requires
changing the BUILD.gn file, for which //content OWNERS approval is
currently required. It shouldn't be for such trivial changes.

BUG=
==========

[Peter Beverloo, 2017-03-17 13:50:27]

Patchset #1 (id:1) has been deleted

[Peter Beverloo, 2017-03-17 13:53:10]

peter@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ avi@chromium.org, jam@chromium.org

[Peter Beverloo, 2017-03-17 13:53:10]

+avi, jam, what do you think?

This already is the case in //content/test/, I'm extending it to the other
//content directories which have many sub-directories with their own OWNERS too.

The alternative would be to give such directories BUILD.gn files of their own w/
source_set DEPS, but the added value of that isn't that big.

[Avi (use Gerrit), 2017-03-17 16:38:15]

I'm OK with this. John?

[jam, 2017-03-17 17:19:28]

On 2017/03/17 16:38:15, Avi wrote:
> I'm OK with this. John?

I'm fine, but I thought the whole point of GN files is that once we switched
from gyp we would split them up to have per directory files. wouldn't that also
solve this problem?

[Peter Beverloo, 2017-03-17 17:28:12]

On 2017/03/17 17:19:28, jam wrote:
> On 2017/03/17 16:38:15, Avi wrote:
> > I'm OK with this. John?
> 
> I'm fine, but I thought the whole point of GN files is that once we switched
> from gyp we would split them up to have per directory files. wouldn't that
also
> solve this problem?

Yes, and I mentioned that. Happy to do that too if that's got the preference.

[jam, 2017-03-17 19:02:15]

On 2017/03/17 17:28:12, Peter Beverloo wrote:
> On 2017/03/17 17:19:28, jam wrote:
> > On 2017/03/17 16:38:15, Avi wrote:
> > > I'm OK with this. John?
> > 
> > I'm fine, but I thought the whole point of GN files is that once we switched
> > from gyp we would split them up to have per directory files. wouldn't that
> also
> > solve this problem?
> 
> Yes, and I mentioned that. Happy to do that too if that's got the preference.

I think that's the better solution, because it removes risk of bad build changes
landing.