If you're confused why you don't see any enums or cats at her first link, it's because the file has changed since March. She was talking about https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/d413b2dcb54...

Ahhh thanks! I've added a note about it :)

Well, the new link is prone to the same problem.

It's a bit of a hassle but you have to go to View In (top-right corner) -> Git Revision Log, copy the SHA1 of the topmost commit, go back, View In -> Git, and replace "master" in the URL with the copied SHA1.

(It appears Gitiles doesn't support using the SHA1 of the tip of the tree as showed in the latter page, which is why you have to get the SHA1 of the latest commit to that file from the former page instead.)

Yes, we should have owners for code. I hate shared ownership ( "The WHOLE team owns the code !"). Quality happens when at most one person is responsible to make it happen. If there are two people responsible to make good quality software, each person will think that the other person will do the hard stuff.

Quality happens when people feel like they are allowed to invest the time to clean up. Telling someone they are an owner is one way to do that.

Most companies base your performance only on new features, creating a culture of fear around refactoring ("I would love to refactor that, but it's not going to put any points on the board in Pivotal, so I'll just wait until some unspecified future day when the refactoring will get scheduled as a project." Which of course never happens because product owners are also judged based on new features.

Ownership has a bunch of negative side effects, particularly around balkanization of styles and practices. Which isn't to say it's not the right choice in many situations.... it absolutely is. But to say it's the only way to get quality is just wrong. Another approach would be to encourage coders to add refactor stories to their queues and include those in performance reviews. Or have dedicated code quality engineers.

Almost anything where you can make people believe that cleaning up is part of their job will do the same trick.

Well, what you measure improves.

I like specifying the owner as a OWNER file and using directory structure to express granularity. It's much better than having to dig through your project wiki.

By the way, epictacular domain name!

off topic, but I very much like the multicoloured pulsing links on this blog page. It gives the impression of something alive and important that the link is pointing to. It makes me want to click the link.

  a:hover {
	animation: 0.5s ease 0s normal none infinite running zomg;
  }

where zomg is the animation name (with the multi coloured keyframes)

zomg, please, never use such monstrosity.