Add ossu@ to OWNERS of audio/ and modules/audio_coding/

Add ossu@ to OWNERS of audio/ and modules/audio_coding/

BUG=none

Committed: https://crrev.com/a97c5d233d0e8e6fa4b3ebea4e229c893ecfaca3
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#15640}

[ossu, 2016-12-15 13:25:15]

ossu@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ henrik.lundin@webrtc.org, solenberg@webrtc.org

[ossu, 2016-12-15 13:25:15]

I also removed tina.legrand@ and kwiberg@ from these, as they both are top-level
owners. Please advice if wrong, and I'll correct.

[kwiberg-webrtc, 2016-12-15 13:35:02]

On 2016/12/15 13:25:15, ossu wrote:
> I also removed tina.legrand@ and kwiberg@ from these, as they both are
top-level
> owners. Please advice if wrong, and I'll correct.

+1 for adding yourself, but I'm not so sure about removing Tina and me. The
OWNERS files—in addition to doing access control—also serve as a list of
suggested reviewers. And because you usually want reviewers who are familiar
with the details of the code, it's best to pick reviewers from the most specific
OWNERS file. In other words, the OWNERS files also list people who are familiar
with the subtree in question.

Hmm. It may be good to ask everyone to look up themselves in all OWNERS files
and remove entries for the subtrees they don't consider themselves good
reviewers for. Not as a prerequisite for this CL, though. :-)

[hlundin-webrtc, 2016-12-15 13:42:37]

Agree with Karl. +1 for adding, -1 for removing.

[ossu, 2016-12-15 13:42:53]

ossu@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ tina.legrand@webrtc.org

[ossu, 2016-12-15 13:42:53]

I'll put you back, if you want me to, kwiberg. :)

Tina: I seem to recall you wanting to be removed when we discussed this a while
back. Is this correct?

[ossu, 2016-12-15 14:32:21]

On 2016/12/15 13:42:53, ossu wrote:
> I'll put you back, if you want me to, kwiberg. :)
> 
> Tina: I seem to recall you wanting to be removed when we discussed this a
while
> back. Is this correct?

I just spoke to Tina and she wanted to be removed from these OWNERS files. I've
added kwiberg back in.

[kwiberg-webrtc, 2016-12-15 14:38:26]

kwiberg@webrtc.org changed reviewers:
+ kwiberg@webrtc.org

[kwiberg-webrtc, 2016-12-15 14:38:26]

lgtm

[the sun, 2016-12-15 14:41:25]

lgtm

Perhaps you could reach out to Jan and Turaj as well - they probably won't
recognize the code as it is today.

[ossu, 2016-12-15 14:43:56]

On 2016/12/15 14:41:25, the sun wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Perhaps you could reach out to Jan and Turaj as well - they probably won't
> recognize the code as it is today.

Will do! If they agree, I'll put up a separate CL later.

[ossu, 2016-12-15 14:44:06]

The CQ bit was checked by ossu@webrtc.org

[hlundin-webrtc, 2016-12-15 14:44:11]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 14:44:15]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.webrtc.org/...

[kwiberg-webrtc, 2016-12-15 14:56:47]

On 2016/12/15 14:41:25, the sun wrote:
> lgtm
> 
> Perhaps you could reach out to Jan and Turaj as well - they probably won't
> recognize the code as it is today.

I think we should consider making a pass through all OWNERS files, and only keep
the entries for people who explicitly say they want to stay. Should I send out a
mail to all OWNERS and ask them? I'm thinking a simple binary question: "Do you
want to be removed from all OWNERS files?", with default answer Yes for people
who don't answer. (If people want to be removed from a subset of the files, I'll
ask them to submit CLs as usual.) And once that's done, maybe an announcement
mail inviting people to submit CLs like this one nominating themselves as new
OWNERS?

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 15:52:08]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 20001, "attempt_start_ts": 1481813046790200,
"parent_rev": "95adc87e5b33df2de64407d91e787646e5a9fff8", "commit_rev":
"e434f69372cce9b9a9c9d068302f9c9cf55b202e"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 15:52:10]

Description was changed from

==========
Add ossu@ to OWNERS of audio/ and modules/audio_coding/

BUG=none
==========

to

==========
Add ossu@ to OWNERS of audio/ and modules/audio_coding/

BUG=none

Review-Url: https://codereview.webrtc.org/2576213003
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 15:52:11]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 15:52:21]

Description was changed from

==========
Add ossu@ to OWNERS of audio/ and modules/audio_coding/

BUG=none

Review-Url: https://codereview.webrtc.org/2576213003
==========

to

==========
Add ossu@ to OWNERS of audio/ and modules/audio_coding/

BUG=none

Committed: https://crrev.com/a97c5d233d0e8e6fa4b3ebea4e229c893ecfaca3
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#15640}
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-12-15 15:52:22]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/a97c5d233d0e8e6fa4b3ebea4e229c893ecfaca3
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#15640}

[ossu, 2016-12-16 09:53:47]

On 2016/12/15 14:56:47, kwiberg-webrtc wrote:
> On 2016/12/15 14:41:25, the sun wrote:
> > lgtm
> > 
> > Perhaps you could reach out to Jan and Turaj as well - they probably won't
> > recognize the code as it is today.
> 
> I think we should consider making a pass through all OWNERS files, and only
keep
> the entries for people who explicitly say they want to stay. Should I send out
a
> mail to all OWNERS and ask them? I'm thinking a simple binary question: "Do
you
> want to be removed from all OWNERS files?", with default answer Yes for people
> who don't answer. (If people want to be removed from a subset of the files,
I'll
> ask them to submit CLs as usual.) And once that's done, maybe an announcement
> mail inviting people to submit CLs like this one nominating themselves as new
> OWNERS?

I think that's a good idea. It would be great if the OWNERS files were accurate,
to help in picking reviewers etc.

[hlundin-webrtc, 2016-12-16 10:11:06]

On 2016/12/16 09:53:47, ossu wrote:
> On 2016/12/15 14:56:47, kwiberg-webrtc wrote:
> > On 2016/12/15 14:41:25, the sun wrote:
> > > lgtm
> > > 
> > > Perhaps you could reach out to Jan and Turaj as well - they probably won't
> > > recognize the code as it is today.
> > 
> > I think we should consider making a pass through all OWNERS files, and only
> keep
> > the entries for people who explicitly say they want to stay. Should I send
out
> a
> > mail to all OWNERS and ask them? I'm thinking a simple binary question: "Do
> you
> > want to be removed from all OWNERS files?", with default answer Yes for
people
> > who don't answer. (If people want to be removed from a subset of the files,
> I'll
> > ask them to submit CLs as usual.) And once that's done, maybe an
announcement
> > mail inviting people to submit CLs like this one nominating themselves as
new
> > OWNERS?
> fr
> I think that's a good idea. It would be great if the OWNERS files were
accurate,
> to help in picking reviewers etc.

On the other hand, if people are getting review requests for code from which
they have become estranged, they could remove themselves. I'm not sure the
problem is large enough to warrant spring cleaning just yet.