This is sort of a continuation of #74 . In the discussion, there were tradeoffs mentioned when using the base branch for the source of rules. PR #76 chose having the base branch be the source of truth for rules and configuration. This feature request is basically to implement the other tradeoff: summing ownership rules across the base branch and current branch.
"Summing" is an overloaded term, so I want to be explicit about this: it would be the equivalent of (pseudocode in .codeowners-like syntax):
rules_from_base_branch & rules_from_pr_branch
In other words, the PR must satisfy .codeowners rules for both the base branch and the PR's branch.
This facilitates transitions of ownership in a self-service way. For example, if team-a wants to transfer ownership of a file to team-b, you'd just need a single PR with approvals from a member of both teams. This also makes it so that you can't accidentally assign ownership to someone, since now they'll be a required reviewer.
This is sort of a continuation of #74 . In the discussion, there were tradeoffs mentioned when using the base branch for the source of rules. PR #76 chose having the base branch be the source of truth for rules and configuration. This feature request is basically to implement the other tradeoff: summing ownership rules across the base branch and current branch.
"Summing" is an overloaded term, so I want to be explicit about this: it would be the equivalent of (pseudocode in
.codeowners-like syntax):In other words, the PR must satisfy
.codeownersrules for both the base branch and the PR's branch.This facilitates transitions of ownership in a self-service way. For example, if
team-awants to transfer ownership of a file toteam-b, you'd just need a single PR with approvals from a member of both teams. This also makes it so that you can't accidentally assign ownership to someone, since now they'll be a required reviewer.