Soong having OWNERS in frameworks/base is useful to enable LSCs;
however, they shouldn't appear in review suggestions except as a
fallback.
Test: n/a
Change-Id: I86618b66e51893908478def9fc455a3dfde146f0
Since TEST_MAPPING files can reference test suites flung far across
the source tree, allow anyone to make changes to them.
Bug: 174932174
Test: none
Change-Id: I11dd436ac55e516263a587f9f82b17ce56e9e2e2
This target is used for TradeFed dependencies and can be managed
separately by these two teams.
Bug: 181921006
Test: Manual
Change-Id: Ibcfeef30c8cb88e244561cac99c034981b84ed80
These top-level owners are only designed to offer fallback support
in situations such as local OWNERS files becoming stale, large-scale
changes, etc.
When local owners have been defined by a sub-team, only those owners
should appear in the Gerrit suggestions list.
Bug: 181661570
Test: none
Change-Id: Ib201cb32e97707d35df077128f4c5e8205124b7f
The proto build rules are quite large and makes the top-level Android.bp
file difficult to navigate. Move them to a separate file.
Bug: 185128417
Test: m
Merged-In: I5719ba0fa8e03dcfca0cc32dc30db3f87ea4e3cd
Change-Id: I5719ba0fa8e03dcfca0cc32dc30db3f87ea4e3cd
Iteration based on areas of tree where detailed ownership was found
to be missing during routine code reviews.
Also add more detailed examples to OWNERS.md.
Bug: 174932174
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: refactoring with team leads buy-in
Change-Id: I46ccef33b34594181ae8dc62973d68020f827d6b
As general background, OWNERS files expedite code reviews by helping
code authors quickly find relevant reviewers, and they also ensure
that stakeholders are involved in code changes in their areas.
Some teams under frameworks/base/ have been using OWNERS files
successfully for many years, and we're ready to expand them to cover
more areas. Here's the historical coverage statistics for the last
two years of changes before these new OWNERS changes land:
-- 56% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 17% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 25% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
Working closely with team leads, we've now identified clear OWNERS on
a per-package basis, and we're using "include" directives whenever
possible to to simplify future maintenance. With this extensive
effort, we've now improved our coverage as follows:
-- 98% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
This specific change is automatically generated by a script that
identifies relevant "include" directives.
Bug: 174932174
Test: manual
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: refactoring with team leads buy-in
Merged-In: I3480ddf2fe7ba3dfb922b459d4da01fa17a2c813
Change-Id: I3480ddf2fe7ba3dfb922b459d4da01fa17a2c813
As general background, OWNERS files expedite code reviews by helping
code authors quickly find relevant reviewers, and they also ensure
that stakeholders are involved in code changes in their areas.
Some teams under frameworks/base/ have been using OWNERS files
successfully for many years, and we're ready to expand them to cover
more areas. Here's the historical coverage statistics for the last
two years of changes before these new OWNERS changes land:
-- 56% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 17% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 25% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
Working closely with team leads, we've now identified clear OWNERS on
a per-package basis, and we're using "include" directives whenever
possible to to simplify future maintenance. With this extensive
effort, we've now improved our coverage as follows:
-- 98% of changes are fully covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes are partially covered by OWNERS
-- 1% of changes have no OWNERS coverage
This specific change begins defining top-level OWNERS lists,
including a general catch-all for string translations.
Bug: 174932174
Test: manual
Exempt-From-Owner-Approval: refactoring with team leads buy-in
Change-Id: Ie7ac3302d40a717fa048115cca2ea4359de64959
