Add CODEOWNERS

[jan-cerny]

Code owners are automatically requested for review when someone opens a
pull request that modifies code that they own. Optionally, the
repository can be configured to require an approval from a code owner
before merging a PR that modifies code that they own.

See:
https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners

Related to #8359

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[jan-cerny]

@matejak GitHub supports using teams in the CODEOWNERS file. It can be useful to create a "Red Hat Employees" team and use the team instead of listing the people repeatedly. I can't setup that because I'm not an admin.

[Mab879]

@jan-cerny I have created a "Red Hatters" team.

[github-actions]

Start a new ephemeral environment with changes proposed in this pull request:

[jan-cerny]

Would we like to have code owners specified also for example for build system and build scripts?

[Mab879]

I think code owners for the build system, build scripts, utilities would be a good idea.

[jan-cerny]

Actually, in the related PR #8359 where we try to define the responsibilities its already described that CODEOWNERS will be used for:

• Products
• Product Specific Profiles
• Build system
• Shared Resources
• Tests

Now the problem is who will be the owners of these modules ... For example who will own build system. The people that contributed to build system? People that had at least 6 PRs to build system? QE? All Red Hatters?

[jan-cerny]

I have changed the file to use the @ComplianceAsCode/red-hatters team, but GH shows an error that the team needs to have write rights.

[Mab879]

@jan-cerny I have given the team write access.

[Mab879]

Actually, in the related PR #8359 where we try to define the responsibilities its already described that CODEOWNERS will be used for:

* Products

* Product Specific Profiles

* Build system

* Shared Resources

* Tests

Now the problem is who will be the owners of these modules ... For example who will own build system. The people that contributed to build system? People that had at least 6 PRs to build system? QE? All Red Hatters?

Do we want to start with just products if we don't have good answers to those questions?

[jan-cerny]

We can, it would be a good start - we would merge this PR and then we can gradually add new restriction as you go,

@matejak Do you have any opinion on CODEOWNERS and current proposal? It's related to your effort of traffic rights.

[Mab879]

What can be done to move this forward? Now that we have this file listed in our government we should get this merged.

[Mab879]

@jan-cerny Can you mark this as ready to review?

[matejak]

@matejak Do you have any opinion on CODEOWNERS and current proposal? It's related to your effort of traffic rights.

I couldn't agree more, let's merge this and then add more lines gradually.

[jan-cerny]

Yes, then we can stop being a draft and merge this.