Re: Advice on placement of OWNERS files for inclusion

[Mike Frysinger]

we've been recommending a strategy like:

• for ebuilds that exist just as a dep for another package and isn't interesting in & of itself, have it include the OWNERS file of the package that's pulling it in.  for example, the dev-python/gcs-oauth2-boto-plugin package only exists because we want net-misc/gsutil.  if gsutil ever stopped using the package, we'd drop it.  so we have:
  dev-python/gcs-oauth2-boto-plugin/OWNERS:include /net-misc/gsutil/OWNERS
  
• for cros-workon packages, they include the settings from their source repos.  a lot of platform2 packages do that:
  chromeos-base/crosh/OWNERS:include chromiumos/platform2:/crosh/OWNERS
• for source projects that end up being a little bit of an umbrella, re-use those OWNERS files as a proxy for "team".  not always the best fit, but sometimes it works.
  sys-fs/fuse-archive/OWNERS:include chromiumos/platform2:/cros-disks/OWNERS
  

if that doesn't fit your current use, i think we have another option pending that we should have available this quarter.  let me know if that makes sense.

-mike

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 12:37 PM Chad Versace <chadv...@google.com> wrote:

Hi vapier, I have a question about OWNERS. The cros-gfx team is discussing assigning the OWNERS file for general graphics stuff (such as dev-util/vulkan-headers and src/third_party/khronos), for both ebuilds and git repos, to the entire graphics team by including a yet-to-be-created OWNERS.foo file.

Where is the best location to add OWNERS.foo to the tree?

[Chad Versace]

These options make sense for some cases, but still don't fit the primary goal (assign general graphics packages to the whole graphics team) because there does not exist an umbrella project for the graphics team. There are a myriad of graphics repos with no clear primary repo. However, until the new pending option arrives, we could possibly bless a repo into which we place our umbrella OWNERS file.

Thanks