This PR adds a CODEOWNERS file to the project, specifying that for any PR made against the develop branch, all members of the @the-difference-engine/ksf-tech-leads team (which I just created) will be added as reviewers on the PR.
Additionally (and this is something that can be configured outside of this PR) we can set up the @the-difference-engine/ksf-tech-leads team to auto-assign a specific tech lead to each PR, in a round-robin fashion. I think this, combined with communication of the expectation that a PR's assignee is ultimately the one responsible for reviewing a that PR, will help standardize how we handle PR reviews.
Describe the problem being solved:
Inconsistent PR reviewer/assignee practices.
Summary
This PR adds a CODEOWNERS file to the project, specifying that for any PR made against the develop branch, all members of the @the-difference-engine/ksf-tech-leads team (which I just created) will be added as reviewers on the PR.
Additionally (and this is something that can be configured outside of this PR) we can set up the @the-difference-engine/ksf-tech-leads team to auto-assign a specific tech lead to each PR, in a round-robin fashion. I think this, combined with communication of the expectation that a PR's assignee is ultimately the one responsible for reviewing a that PR, will help standardize how we handle PR reviews.