[RISCV] Add more files to .github/CODEOWNERS

[topperc]

No description provided.

[topperc]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv

[jrtc27]

Or perhaps we should follow the suggestion in https://discourse.llvm.org/t/input-needed-teams-for-pull-request-subscriptions/73116/79? That's effectively what my Herald rule did (though case-insensitive).

[jrtc27]

Any reason not to do:

Suggested change

	/llvm/**/*RISCV* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/clang/**/*RISCV* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/clang/include/clang/Basic/riscv_*.td @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/clang/lib/Headers/riscv_* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/llvm/**/*RISCV* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/llvm/**/*riscv* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/clang/**/*riscv* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/clang/**/*RISCV* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/lld/**/*riscv* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv
	/lld/**/*RISCV* @llvm/pr-subscribers-riscv

?

[topperc]

I was wondering if lld RISC-V should be it's own team? Seems like a much smaller set of interested people.

[jrtc27]

I'd be ok with that

[MaskRay]

See also https://discourse.llvm.org/t/input-needed-teams-for-pull-request-subscriptions/73116/80

There is a difference between “core” backend files and catch-all patterns.

[topperc]

@MaskRay Do you have a suggestion for what "core" for RISC-V should be?

[asb]

For me personally, **/*RISCV matches what I want and I'm not sure the volume of e.g. RISC-V specific LLD or LLDB patches is enough to justify splitting it out into separate teams....but it looks like I'm going to be handling labeling of any RISC-V related patches on my email client-side anyway, so my personal preference is even less relevant!

This proposed PR is I think definitely an incremental improvement on the current patterns, so I wouldn't be opposed to merging it and moving discussion on the 'ideal' setup to elsewhere. Marking it as LGTM on that basis.