Repository navigation
security: define sensitive CODEOWNERS boundaries - #54
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Implements CLI-013 by defining explicit ownership for security-, release-, dependency-, CI-, and current trust-boundary-sensitive paths without applying a blanket owner to ordinary contributor work.
Included
.github/CODEOWNERS@dDevAhmedas the initial real owner rather than inventing a team/aliasdocs/contributing/ownership.mdexplaining scope and future evolutionReview model
CODEOWNERS expresses and requests ownership review. It does not by itself require approval. Mandatory code-owner review must be enabled separately through the repository ruleset after the actual status checks and ownership boundaries are established.
Scope control
The repository does not use a catch-all
* @ownerrule. Ordinary features, tests, and general documentation therefore remain contributor-friendly unless their security profile later justifies explicit ownership.Security
Closes #16