//sdk/fidl/OWNERS

[Tamir Duberstein]

Per API review:

Before being merged, every change that modifies the Fuchsia API Surface must receive an API-Review+1

Given that, does it still make sense to maintain a list of the API council members in  //sdk/fidl/OWNERS?

[Adam Barth]

I'm having trouble interpreting your message.  Here are some possibilities for what I think you might mean:

(1) //sdk/fidl/OWNERS is out-of-date and doesn't match the current list of API councils members.  We should update this list to be accurate.

(2) //sdk/fidl/OWNERS is too broad a directory to have a meaningful list of OWNERS.  We should store the list of API council members elsewhere (e.g., https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/governance/api_council?hl=en) and have more specific OWNERS in each subdirectory, as appropriate.

(3) Given that we have the API-Review flag, we might as well include more people in //sdk/fidl/OWNERS (e.g., people who frequently make changes to many subdirectories) because the API-Review flag ensures that changes are reviewed by the API council in any case.

Can you help me understand the question you're asking?  I'm happy to answer, but I want to make sure I'm responding to the question you're actually asking.

Adam

[Tamir Duberstein]

(2) implies that the API-Review flag is driven by this OWNERS file. Is it? The API council page on fuchsia.dev already contains the list of members.

(3) is closest to what I meant; there is redundancy between the API-Review flag and this OWNERS file.

I didn't intend to prescribe a solution. A combination of (2) and (3) would be my preference: remove the top-level file and have more specific ones in each subdirectory.

[Adam Barth]

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:57 PM Tamir Duberstein <tam...@google.com> wrote:

(2) implies that the API-Review flag is driven by this OWNERS file. Is it? The API council page on fuchsia.dev already contains the list of members.

The API-Review flag is driven by membership in https://groups.google.com/a/fuchsia.dev/g/api-council not by OWNERS files.  We did it that way because it's the easiest way for Gerrit to manage flag permissions.

 

(3) is closest to what I meant; there is redundancy between the API-Review flag and this OWNERS file.

I didn't intend to prescribe a solution. A combination of (2) and (3) would be my preference: remove the top-level file and have more specific ones in each subdirectory.

That makes sense to me.  Generally, I would lean towards having more people in //sdk/fidl/OWNERS as well as having more OWNERS in subdirectories.  I agree that it doesn't make sense to use this OWNERS file to document membership in the API council.  The list on the web site does a better job of that.  I'm happy to review CLs in this direction.

Adam