Recent code owner activities have led to
what I would call loss of referential integrity
in the CODE_OWNERS.TXT file.
Changes are fine but the information in the
CODE_OWNERS.TXT does not allow to positively
identify code owner of the particular
file or patch.
The problem stems from the usage of the
"description (D)" field which is overloaded
with meaning. Most people put only a textual
description of the code they own.
This approach is fine for casual reader but
does not work for scripting or any automated
way of dealing with the build.
I would like to propose addition of the
"folder/file (F)" field. The format
would be the same as used by Joe,Owen
F: (lib/Bitcode/* include/llvm/Bitcode/*)
Situation is particularly bad for the 3.2 branch as
"old" owner is not necessarily the same as new one.
So for the time being I have adopted the policy
of using code owner from the trunk as the one
responsible for approving the patches.
This worked for a while but there are more and
more patches requested with no clear way of
identifying the owner. Situation has got to
the point where AI (lame as it is) embedded
in the 3.2 integration bots simply says:
DOES NOT COMPUTE!
Therefor I have no choice but to suspend
accepting all of the 3.2 patches until the
situation gets resolved.