Use term 'folder code owners' instead of 'non-restricted code owners' The documentation used two different terms to relate to the code owners that apply to all files in a folder (code owners that are listed without 'per-file' restriction prefix): 1. folder code owners 2. non-restricted code owners Make this consistent and use always 'folder code owners' which is the term that is easier to understand. Signed-off-by: Edwin Kempin <ekempin@google.com> Change-Id: Icd23972c1df499769a9c166c96c39281b3a31262
diff --git a/resources/Documentation/backend-find-owners-cookbook.md b/resources/Documentation/backend-find-owners-cookbook.md index a3e1adb..106a79e 100644 --- a/resources/Documentation/backend-find-owners-cookbook.md +++ b/resources/Documentation/backend-find-owners-cookbook.md
@@ -87,8 +87,8 @@ users that are mentioned in these [per-file](backend-find-owners.html#perFile) lines. -If non-restricted code owners are present, the file is also owned by any -non-restricted code owners: +If folder code owners are present, the file is also owned by any folder code +owners: ``` jane.roe@example.com @@ -101,9 +101,9 @@ parent directories. #### <a id="perFileWithSetNoparent"> -Ignoring non-restricted code owners and inherited parent code owners for a file -is possible by using a matching [per-file](backend-find-owners.html#perFile) -line with [set noparent](backend-find-owners.html#setNoparent). +Ignoring folder code owners and inherited parent code owners for a file is +possible by using a matching [per-file](backend-find-owners.html#perFile) line +with [set noparent](backend-find-owners.html#setNoparent). ``` jane.roe@example.com @@ -115,10 +115,10 @@ \ **NOTE:** When the [set noparent](backend-find-owners.html#setNoparent) rule is used you should always define code owners which should be used instead of the -non-restricted code owners and the code owners from the parent directories. -Otherwise the matched files stay [without code owners](#noCodeOwners) and nobody -can grant code owner approval on them. To [exempt matched files from requiring -code owner approvals](#exemptFiles), assign the code ownership to [all +folder code owners and the code owners from the parent directories. Otherwise +the matched files stay [without code owners](#noCodeOwners) and nobody can grant +code owner approval on them. To [exempt matched files from requiring code owner +approvals](#exemptFiles), assign the code ownership to [all users](backend-find-owners.html#allUsers) instead ([example](#exemptFiles)). **NOTE:** The syntax for path expressions / globs is explained @@ -189,10 +189,10 @@ ``` \ **NOTE:** The `per-file` line from `/OWNERS_BUILD` is not imported, since the -[file](backend-find-owners.html#fileKeyword) keyword only imports non-restricted -code owners. Using the [include](backend-find-owners.html#includeKeyword) -keyword, that would also consider per-file code owners, is not supported for -`per-file` lines. +[file](backend-find-owners.html#fileKeyword) keyword only imports folder code +owners. Using the [include](backend-find-owners.html#includeKeyword) keyword, +that would also consider per-file code owners, is not supported for `per-file` +lines. ### <a id="importOtherOwnersFile">Import code owners from other OWNERS file @@ -223,9 +223,8 @@ \ **NOTE:** The `per-file` line from `java/com/example/foo/OWNERS` is not imported, since the [file](backend-find-owners.html#fileKeyword) keyword only -imports non-restricted code owners. If also `per-line` files should be imported -the [include](backend-find-owners.html#includeKeyword) keyword can be used -instead: +imports folder code owners. If also `per-line` lines should be imported the +[include](backend-find-owners.html#includeKeyword) keyword can be used instead: `javatests/com/example/foo/OWNERS`: ``` @@ -330,8 +329,8 @@ * an `OWNERS` file with only `set noparent` (ignores code owners from parent directories, but doesn't define code owners that should be used instead) -* a `per-file` line with only `set noparent` (ignores non-restricted code owners - and code owners from parent directories, but doesn't define code owners that +* a `per-file` line with only `set noparent` (ignores folder code owners and + code owners from parent directories, but doesn't define code owners that should be used instead) * no `OWNERS` file at root level