Repository navigation
{Misc} Rename CODEOWNERS to OWNERS - #10495
Closed
Yu Chen (jsntcy) wants to merge 2 commits into
Closed
Yu Chen (jsntcy) wants to merge 2 commits into
Yu Chen (jsntcy) wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Yu Chen (jsntcy)
requested review from
Aditya Pujara (a0x1ab),
ZelinWang (wangzelin007) and
Yong Zhang (yonzhan)
October 21, 2026 01:01
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request. Check if the Files changed in this pull request are included in default exclusions.
Collaborator
|
Misc |
Member
Author
|
Copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request |
Co-authored-by: jsntcy <16348853+jsntcy@users.noreply.github.com>
Contributor
Merged the latest |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why do we rename CODEOWNERS to OWNERS?
As we move to a squad-based Scrum Master model, CODEOWNERS has become a bottleneck for code review productivity.
After we renamed CODEOWNERS to OWNERS, GitHub will then treat it (OWNERS) as a normal file, so we can keep the ownership information without triggering the built-in CODEOWNERS behavior (Merging will be blocked by owner's approval).
This also prevents GitHub from automatically requesting reviews from the listed owners, which no longer matches our process. Instead, the squad, acting as the Scrum Master, should be assigned as the reviewer.