7 ms·
If there weren't "clear owners," who was approving code changes for merge? Every other major arm of Microsoft has been tasked with burdensome controls over tra
by roadbuster 2mo ago
If there weren't "clear owners," who was approving code changes for merge?
Every other major arm of Microsoft has been tasked with burdensome controls over tracking any and all production changes to source code, but Github was operating without a useful system and record of ownership for nearly 80% of its repos (11000/14000)?
- woodruffw 2mo agoI think they mean "clear owners" as in "responsible individuals," not that the repos literally lacked people with merge approval rights.
- Onavo 2mo agoAnd presumably a bunch of employees left and no longer has access to it.
- hamdingers 2mo agoGiven over half were archived as part of this effort it's likely nobody was making code changes that needed approving.
- Guvante 2mo ago> For repositories attached to production services, we have historically had robust durable ownership, but for repositories with no associated service, there was no reliable way to tell who the owner is.