Add OWNERS files

Add OWNERS files

R=maruel@chromium.org, vadimsh@chromium.org, smut@google.com
BUG=

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007
Committed: https://github.com/luci/luci-py/commit/9053c93a90775a88d97e0163a2bce259211c5cc8

[nodir, 2017-06-08 01:36:26]

PTAL

[smut, 2017-06-08 01:37:55]

lgtm

[M-A Ruel, 2017-06-08 01:41:57]

Add kjlubick@chromium.org in swarming/OWNERS.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 02:07:19]

On 2017/06/08 01:41:57, M-A Ruel wrote:
> Add mailto:kjlubick@chromium.org in swarming/OWNERS.

done

[nodir, 2017-06-08 02:08:39]

On 2017/06/08 02:07:19, nodir wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 01:41:57, M-A Ruel wrote:
> > Add mailto:kjlubick@chromium.org in swarming/OWNERS.
> 
> done

apparently he uses @google.com account

[M-A Ruel, 2017-06-08 02:15:25]

On 2017/06/08 02:08:39, nodir wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 02:07:19, nodir wrote:
> > On 2017/06/08 01:41:57, M-A Ruel wrote:
> > > Add mailto:kjlubick@chromium.org in swarming/OWNERS.
> > 
> > done
> 
> apparently he uses @google.com account

It varies. Kevin can decides as he prefers.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 02:17:16]

On 2017/06/08 02:15:25, M-A Ruel wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 02:08:39, nodir wrote:
> > On 2017/06/08 02:07:19, nodir wrote:
> > > On 2017/06/08 01:41:57, M-A Ruel wrote:
> > > > Add mailto:kjlubick@chromium.org in swarming/OWNERS.
> > > 
> > > done
> > 
> > apparently he uses @google.com account
> 
> It varies. Kevin can decides as he prefers.

it does not seem to. `git log --author=kjlubick@chromium.org` stdout is empty

[kjlubick, 2017-06-08 12:47:39]

kjlubick@google.com changed reviewers:
+ kjlubick@google.com

[kjlubick, 2017-06-08 12:47:40]

My chromium account has the power to lgtm things (I think), but my git instance
is set up to be my google account.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 14:41:09]

On 2017/06/08 12:47:40, kjlubick wrote:
> My chromium account has the power to lgtm things (I think), but my git
instance
> is set up to be my google account.

added both kjlubick emails

[kjlubick, 2017-06-08 15:07:20]

lgtm

[M-A Ruel, 2017-06-08 15:10:06]

lgtm

[nodir, 2017-06-08 15:10:18]

The CQ bit was checked by nodir@chromium.org

[nodir, 2017-06-08 15:10:19]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from smut@google.com
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/#ps80001
(title: "kjlubick@chromium.org")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 15:10:22]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 15:18:51]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 15:18:52]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Luci-py Presubmit on luci.infra.try (JOB_FAILED,
https://luci-milo.appspot.com/swarming/task/36a113503b158110)

[nodir, 2017-06-08 16:53:15]

On 2017/06/08 15:18:52, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> Try jobs failed on following builders:
>   Luci-py Presubmit on luci.infra.try (JOB_FAILED,
> https://luci-milo.appspot.com/swarming/task/36a113503b158110)

added smut@chromium.org and I still need Vadim's approval

[Vadim Sh., 2017-06-08 17:12:35]

I'm not a fan of "noparent", especially when there's only one owner. It's not
like the root OWNERS list is huge.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 17:17:38]

On 2017/06/08 17:12:35, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> I'm not a fan of "noparent", especially when there's only one owner. It's not
> like the root OWNERS list is huge.

I think whoever responsible for a service, must approve all CLs. Anyone takes
responsibility for MP and alike?

[Vadim Sh., 2017-06-08 17:25:26]

On 2017/06/08 17:17:38, nodir wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 17:12:35, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> > I'm not a fan of "noparent", especially when there's only one owner. It's
not
> > like the root OWNERS list is huge.
> 
> I think whoever responsible for a service, must approve all CLs. Anyone takes
> responsibility for MP and alike?

I'm not proposing removing OWNERS from MP. Just remove 'noparent' there. Then it
is still obvious that smut@ is primary approver, but we won't have to bypass
OWNERS check if she's OOO and we need to land an emergent fix or something.

We are not a team of 500 clueless people that requires strict ownership checks
to prevent bad commits.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 17:34:51]

On 2017/06/08 17:25:26, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 17:17:38, nodir wrote:
> > On 2017/06/08 17:12:35, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> > > I'm not a fan of "noparent", especially when there's only one owner. It's
> not
> > > like the root OWNERS list is huge.
> > 
> > I think whoever responsible for a service, must approve all CLs. Anyone
takes
> > responsibility for MP and alike?
> 
> I'm not proposing removing OWNERS from MP. Just remove 'noparent' there. Then
it
> is still obvious that smut@ is primary approver, but we won't have to bypass
> OWNERS check if she's OOO and we need to land an emergent fix or something.
> 
> We are not a team of 500 clueless people that requires strict ownership checks
> to prevent bad commits.

I cannot approve third party's CLs to MP because I don't know this code base.
Thus I don't want to be in MP OWNERS. This is just an example. Examples like
this is the reason I don't like set noparent.

I think OWNERS must contain only people that know the code base sufficiently
enough to approve third party CLs. I assume you and M-A know MP codebase enough
for that. Would adding you and M-A to machine_provider/OWNERS and
gce-backend/OWNERS make you happy?

[Vadim Sh., 2017-06-08 17:52:00]

On 2017/06/08 17:34:51, nodir wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 17:25:26, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> > On 2017/06/08 17:17:38, nodir wrote:
> > > On 2017/06/08 17:12:35, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> > > > I'm not a fan of "noparent", especially when there's only one owner.
It's
> > not
> > > > like the root OWNERS list is huge.
> > > 
> > > I think whoever responsible for a service, must approve all CLs. Anyone
> takes
> > > responsibility for MP and alike?
> > 
> > I'm not proposing removing OWNERS from MP. Just remove 'noparent' there.
Then
> it
> > is still obvious that smut@ is primary approver, but we won't have to bypass
> > OWNERS check if she's OOO and we need to land an emergent fix or something.
> > 
> > We are not a team of 500 clueless people that requires strict ownership
checks
> > to prevent bad commits.
> 
> I cannot approve third party's CLs to MP because I don't know this code base.
> Thus I don't want to be in MP OWNERS. This is just an example. Examples like
> this is the reason I don't like set noparent.
> 
You will not be in direct MP OWNERS list. People will not be sending CLs to you,
unless primary owner is not available. If they do, you can say "I prefer the
primary owner to review the CL".

> I think OWNERS must contain only people that know the code base sufficiently
> enough to approve third party CLs. I assume you and M-A know MP codebase
enough
> for that. Would adding you and M-A to machine_provider/OWNERS and
> gce-backend/OWNERS make you happy?

No, I don't want to be in primary owners list of gce-backend, because I don't
know the code sufficiently well. But I do want an ability to submit CLs there if
Sana is OOO.

[M-A Ruel, 2017-06-08 17:55:26]

What Vadim said.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 18:58:44]

I've removed myself from global owners. PTAL

[M-A Ruel, 2017-06-08 19:01:09]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/140001/client/OWNERS
File client/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/140001/client/OWNERS#newcode1
client/OWNERS:1: per-file named_cache.py=nodir@chromium.org
This is not necessary, just add the email addresses for all files.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 19:11:55]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/140001/client/OWNERS
File client/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/140001/client/OWNERS#newcode1
client/OWNERS:1: per-file named_cache.py=nodir@chromium.org
On 2017/06/08 19:01:08, M-A Ruel wrote:
> This is not necessary, just add the email addresses for all files.

Done.

[M-A Ruel, 2017-06-08 19:22:51]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/150015/client/OWNERS
File client/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/150015/client/OWNERS#newcode1
client/OWNERS:1: maruel@chromium.org
Add dnj and iannucci here and remove the subdirectories. No need to micro
segment here.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 19:56:19]

On 2017/06/08 19:22:51, M-A Ruel wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/150015/client/OWNERS
> File client/OWNERS (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/150015/client/OWNERS#newcode1
> client/OWNERS:1: mailto:maruel@chromium.org
> Add dnj and iannucci here and remove the subdirectories. No need to micro
> segment here.

Done, but I don't see a reason to remove logdog/OWNERS and luci_context/OWNERS.
These people clearly own that code

[nodir, 2017-06-08 22:08:11]

ping

[smut, 2017-06-08 22:09:12]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/gce-backend/...
File appengine/gce-backend/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/gce-backend/...
appengine/gce-backend/OWNERS:1: smut@chromium.org
Remove my @chromium.org.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/machine_prov...
File appengine/machine_provider/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/machine_prov...
appengine/machine_provider/OWNERS:1: smut@chromium.org
Remove my @chromium.org.

[smut, 2017-06-08 22:11:16]

Didn't realize there were more occurrences.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/components/c...
File appengine/components/components/machine_provider/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/components/c...
appengine/components/components/machine_provider/OWNERS:1: smut@chromium.org
Remove my @chromium.org.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/client/OWNERS
File client/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/client/OWNERS#newcode5
client/OWNERS:5: smut@chromium.org
Remove my @chromium.org.

[Vadim Sh., 2017-06-08 22:15:39]

LGTM if you insist, but I still think that using noparent within a repo with
only 3 top level OWNERS is unnecessary strict. Same with pedantic per-file
lines.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/components/c...
File appengine/components/components/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/components/c...
appengine/components/components/OWNERS:4: per-file net*.py=vadimsh@chromium.org
please remove this, I "own" many more files there, not only net.py.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/config_servi...
File appengine/config_service/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/config_servi...
appengine/config_service/OWNERS:3: vadimsh@chromium.org
please remove me from here, I don't know this code sufficiently well.

This will leave you as the only owner (considering 'noparent'), and this is kind
of bad.

[nodir, 2017-06-08 22:20:21]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/config_servi...
File appengine/config_service/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/config_servi...
appengine/config_service/OWNERS:3: vadimsh@chromium.org
On 2017/06/08 22:15:39, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> please remove me from here, I don't know this code sufficiently well.

How come? you agreed to co-own buildbucket while i am on vacation.

> This will leave you as the only owner (considering 'noparent'), and this is
kind
> of bad.

This conversation is not effective. I am tired of it. I will remove set noparent
and land it

[nodir, 2017-06-08 22:23:01]

The CQ bit was checked by nodir@chromium.org

[nodir, 2017-06-08 22:23:01]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from kjlubick@google.com,
smut@google.com, maruel@chromium.org, vadimsh@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/#ps210001
(title: "remove set noparent from config_services/OWNERS")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 22:23:08]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Vadim Sh., 2017-06-08 22:23:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/config_servi...
File appengine/config_service/OWNERS (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/diff/170001/appengine/config_servi...
appengine/config_service/OWNERS:3: vadimsh@chromium.org
On 2017/06/08 22:20:21, nodir wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 22:15:39, Vadim Sh. wrote:
> > please remove me from here, I don't know this code sufficiently well.
> 
> How come? you agreed to co-own buildbucket while i am on vacation.
> 
This is config_service, not buildbucket.

> > This will leave you as the only owner (considering 'noparent'), and this is
> kind
> > of bad.
> 
> This conversation is not effective. I am tired of it. I will remove set
noparent
> and land it

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 22:31:16]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 22:31:18]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Luci-py Presubmit on luci.infra.try (JOB_FAILED,
https://luci-milo.appspot.com/swarming/task/36a2a32b8ff1ea10)

[nodir, 2017-06-08 22:39:25]

The CQ bit was checked by nodir@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 22:39:29]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 22:45:36]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 22:45:37]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Luci-py Presubmit on luci.infra.try (JOB_FAILED,
https://luci-milo.appspot.com/swarming/task/36a2b048ca2eac10)

[nodir, 2017-06-08 22:59:57]

Description was changed from

==========
Enable OWNERS check

R=maruel@chromium.org, vadimsh@chromium.org, smut@google.com
BUG=
==========

to

==========
Add OWNERS files

R=maruel@chromium.org, vadimsh@chromium.org, smut@google.com
BUG=
==========

[nodir, 2017-06-08 23:00:18]

The CQ bit was checked by nodir@chromium.org

[nodir, 2017-06-08 23:00:18]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from
vadimsh@chromium.org, kjlubick@google.com, smut@google.com, maruel@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007/#ps230001
(title: "disable owner check")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 23:00:28]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 23:09:20]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 230001, "attempt_start_ts": 1496962818126640,
"parent_rev": "a342671d3b1d1f555b28c316508a397cf11ad005", "commit_rev":
"9053c93a90775a88d97e0163a2bce259211c5cc8"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 23:09:23]

Description was changed from

==========
Add OWNERS files

R=maruel@chromium.org, vadimsh@chromium.org, smut@google.com
BUG=
==========

to

==========
Add OWNERS files

R=maruel@chromium.org, vadimsh@chromium.org, smut@google.com
BUG=

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2918403007
Committed:
https://github.com/luci/luci-py/commit/9053c93a90775a88d97e0163a2bce259211c5cc8
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-08 23:09:24]

Committed patchset #13 (id:230001) as
https://github.com/luci/luci-py/commit/9053c93a90775a88d97e0163a2bce259211c5cc8