Audit required-reviewer-checks and CODEOWNERS

[erohmensing]

Problem

I feel like the extensibility team gets auto-tagged in too many PRs for review for it to be useful. I'd like to audit it to narrow it down to scopes we'd actually like to review/at least be informed about, to reduce the notification fatigue.

As exhibit A, see my PR filters, the first of which is for "the extensibility team's review is requested, but someone on my team made the pr", and the second is for "the extensibility team's review is requested". Emphasis on the 98 PRs in the latter category (to be fair, its a little egregious at the moment because of BL's PRs, but still)

Current State

The state of required-reviewer-checks:

• Do we still want to review

  • backwards compatibility changes?
  • Test strictness level chnages?
  • Strategic python connector changes?

• strategic python connector changes is being triggered for non-python changes, e.g. here

CODEOWNERS airbyte:

• do we want to be tagged in all things CI?

CODEOWNERS airbyte-platform:

[erohmensing]

• Do we still review backwards compatibility, bypass reasons, and test strictness level?

• can we remove this entire review requirements module and just go on codeowners?

  • check with kat about breaking change reviewers

• .github: has airbyte ci action and a lot of workflows that we are in charge of. if this is too noisy, we could consider making a smaller group of CI people who want to be notified

• if kat is not using it, diable the workflow in the UI (see if this stops it from appearing)

• is kat is using it, make the required reviewers list empty for non-breaking change checks

[erohmensing]

Kat uses this workflow! I will remove extensibility from the lists and see how we fare. I will also ask GL for their preference.