
Why Chromium has code owners - dnantes
http://meowni.ca/posts/chromium-owners/
======
Arnavion
If you're confused why you don't see any enums or cats at her first link, it's
because the file has changed since March. She was talking about
[https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d413b2dcb54...](https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d413b2dcb54d523811d386f1ff4084f677a6d089/chrome/browser/chrome_browser_main_mac.mm#37)

~~~
notwaldorf
Ahhh thanks! I've added a note about it :)

~~~
Arnavion
Well, the new link is prone to the same problem.

It's a bit of a hassle but you have to go to View In (top-right corner) -> Git
Revision Log, copy the SHA1 of the topmost commit, go back, View In -> Git,
and replace "master" in the URL with the copied SHA1.

(It appears Gitiles doesn't support using the SHA1 of the tip of the tree as
showed in the latter page, which is why you have to get the SHA1 of the latest
commit to that file from the former page instead.)

------
simula67
Yes, we should have owners for code. I hate shared ownership ( "The WHOLE team
owns the code !"). Quality happens when at most one person is responsible to
make it happen. If there are two people responsible to make good quality
software, each person will think that the other person will do the hard stuff.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Quality happens when people feel like they are allowed to invest the time to
clean up. Telling someone they are an owner is one way to do that.

Most companies base your performance only on new features, creating a culture
of fear around refactoring ("I would love to refactor that, but it's not going
to put any points on the board in Pivotal, so I'll just wait until some
unspecified future day when the refactoring will get scheduled as a project."
Which of course never happens because product owners are also judged based on
new features.

Ownership has a bunch of negative side effects, particularly around
balkanization of styles and practices. Which isn't to say it's not the right
choice in many situations.... it absolutely is. But to say it's the only way
to get quality is just wrong. Another approach would be to encourage coders to
add refactor stories to their queues and include those in performance reviews.
Or have dedicated code quality engineers.

Almost anything where you can make people believe that cleaning up is part of
their job will do the same trick.

~~~
HappyTypist
Well, what you measure improves.

------
HappyTypist
I like specifying the owner as a OWNER file and using directory structure to
express granularity. It's much better than having to dig through your project
wiki.

By the way, epictacular domain name!

------
chippy
off topic, but I very much like the multicoloured pulsing links on this blog
page. It gives the impression of something alive and important that the link
is pointing to. It makes me want to click the link.

    
    
      a:hover {
    	animation: 0.5s ease 0s normal none infinite running zomg;
      }
    

where zomg is the animation name (with the multi coloured keyframes)

~~~
aargh_aargh
zomg, please, never use such monstrosity.

