Simplify CODEOWNERS

[sethrj]

#2113 has led to too many people being requested by default as codeowners. This reduces the numbers of reviewers requested.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 84.90%. Comparing base (8db575e) to head (f05e25a).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #2150    +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage    84.89%   84.90%            
=========================================
  Files         1273     1273            
  Lines        44667    44667            
  Branches     16765    16611   -154     
=========================================
+ Hits         37922    37926     +4     
+ Misses        4933     4758   -175     
- Partials      1812     1983   +171     

see 132 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[github-actions]

Test summary

 5 400 files   8 692 suites   17m 30s ⏱️
 2 078 tests  2 052 ✅  26 💤 0 ❌
30 374 runs  30 253 ✅ 121 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit f05e25a.

[pcanal]

has led to too many people being requested by default as codeowners

Which PR has too many (eg. #2149 is seemingly 'correct' except for the code-lead being added because of the missing coverage for the test directories)?

[pcanal]

LGTM (although I would call this a simplification but rather an extension/correction to cover all top level directories in addition to src)

[sethrj]

has led to too many people being requested by default as codeowners

Which PR has too many (eg. #2149 is seemingly 'correct' except for the code-lead being added because of the missing coverage for the test directories)?

I think @amandalund ended up deselecting a bunch of irrelevant people for a recent refactor: some of my pulls have shown up with like six people . I wish we could distinguish "give people a heads up that this code is being touched" from "please take a look at this and give me feedback" .

[amandalund]

Yes, I didn't need a review from half the team in #2146 for a minor reorganization... but since it touched files in many different places maybe it's difficult to avoid.

[pcanal]

I didn't need a review from half the team in #2146 for a minor reorganization...

True but conversely they (maybe) needed to be made aware of the change ... (i.e. Seth's distinction between please review vs please take note).

[sethrj]

I think "reviewers" should be people who are requested to review the code, since at least one must do so. A secondary function ('pinging' people who have worked recently on the given files) could be implemented with a bot tagging people who have git history with the files (and we could maybe filter on PRs that aren't 'minor').