chore: Update CODEOWNERS

[flashinfer-bot]

Summary

This PR updates the CODEOWNERS file based on git commit history analysis from the last 180 days.

Changes

• Updated .github/CODEOWNERS with current code ownership based on:
  • Commit frequency
  • File coverage
  • Commit recency

How to Review

1. Review the changes to .github/CODEOWNERS
2. Verify that the assigned owners are appropriate for each module
3. Make manual adjustments if needed before merging

Notes

• This is an automated PR generated weekly
• Minimum commits threshold: 1
• Analysis period: 180 days
• Directory depth: 3 levels
• Top N owners per module: 5

---

🤖 This PR was automatically generated by the update-codeowners workflow

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Chores
  • Updated code ownership configuration across multiple directories to redistribute team responsibilities.

Note: This is an internal administrative update with no impact on product features or user experience.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @flashinfer-bot, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request automates the maintenance of the CODEOWNERS file, ensuring that the designated reviewers for different parts of the codebase are accurate and up-to-date. This helps streamline the review process by automatically assigning the most relevant individuals or teams to changes, based on their recent contributions and expertise.

Highlights

• CODEOWNERS Update: The .github/CODEOWNERS file has been updated based on an automated analysis of git commit history from the last 180 days. This analysis considers commit frequency, file coverage, and commit recency to determine current code ownership.
• Automated Process: This pull request is automatically generated weekly by the update-codeowners workflow to ensure the CODEOWNERS file remains current.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request updates .github/CODEOWNERS to redistribute code ownership across multiple directories including csrc, fused_moe, nv_internal, tensorrt_llm, flashinfer paths, and scripts by swapping and expanding the owner assignments.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
CODEOWNERS Configuration \.github/CODEOWNERS	Reassigns code owners across csrc, csrc/fused_moe, csrc/fused_moe/cutlass_backend, csrc/nv_internal, tensorrt_llm, flashinfer-related paths, and top-level scripts; reorders and adds/removes individual owner entries

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

• Verify that all owner reassignments are intentional and correct across the specified directories
• Confirm that removed owners are no longer responsible and newly added owners have appropriate permissions

Possibly related PRs

• flashinfer-ai/flashinfer#2067: Modifies the same CODEOWNERS entries with overlapping owner reassignments across csrc, flashinfer, and related paths
• flashinfer-ai/flashinfer#1984: Makes overlapping CODEOWNERS edits affecting the same directories (csrc, fused_moe, tensorrt_llm, flashinfer, scripts)
• flashinfer-ai/flashinfer#2098: Modifies CODEOWNERS to reorder and reassign ownership across identical directories within the same file

Suggested reviewers

• yzh119
• nvmbreughe
• bkryu

Poem

🐰 A hop through the owners we go,
New hands shall tend the code below,
With csrc and flashinfer in view,
We shuffle the guardians, tried and true! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'chore: Update CODEOWNERS' is clear and concise, directly reflecting the main change of updating the CODEOWNERS file.
Description check	✅ Passed	The PR description provides sufficient context including purpose, changes made, and review instructions, though it doesn't strictly follow the provided template sections.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch auto-update-codeowners

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request automatically updates the .github/CODEOWNERS file based on recent git commit history. The changes are consistent with the stated goal of reflecting current ownership based on contributions. I've identified a couple of opportunities to simplify the file by removing redundant ownership declarations for subdirectories that have the same owners as their parents. Applying these suggestions will make the CODEOWNERS file easier to maintain.

[gemini-code-assist]

The list of owners for csrc/fused_moe/cutlass_backend/ is identical to its parent directory csrc/fused_moe/. To simplify the CODEOWNERS file and improve maintainability, this redundant line can be removed. Ownership rules will automatically fall back to the parent directory's definition. This might be an opportunity to improve the generation script to avoid creating these redundant entries in the future.

[gemini-code-assist]

The owners for csrc/nv_internal/tensorrt_llm/ are identical to its parent directory csrc/nv_internal/. This line is redundant and can be removed to simplify the file, as ownership will be inherited from the parent directory. This might be an opportunity to improve the generation script to avoid creating these redundant entries.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

.github/CODEOWNERS (1)

29-29: Double‑check flashinfer/fused_moe owners vs csrc/fused_moe

flashinfer/fused_moe/ has a very similar owner set to csrc/fused_moe/ but omits @yongwww, who is listed for the csrc fused_moe paths and nv_internal. If @yongwww is also expected to own the flashinfer fused_moe layer, consider adding them here; otherwise the current difference is fine and reflects the commit history.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dc37789 and c58af4b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• .github/CODEOWNERS (3 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Deploy Docs

🔇 Additional comments (3)

.github/CODEOWNERS (3)

11-14: csrc/ ownership entries are syntactically correct and ordered from general to specific*

csrc/, csrc/fused_moe/, csrc/fused_moe/cutlass_backend/, and csrc/nv_internal/ all use valid CODEOWNERS syntax, and the ordering (base path first, then more specific subpaths) is appropriate so that specific rules can override the general one if needed. No changes required here.

---

17-17: nv_internal/tensorrt_llm ownership is consistent with surrounding nv_internal entries

The csrc/nv_internal/tensorrt_llm/ entry reuses the same owner set as csrc/nv_internal/, which keeps ownership consistent for that subtree. Syntax and placement look good.

---

45-45: scripts/ ownership entry is valid; broad coverage looks intentional

The scripts/ entry is syntactically correct and assigns a reasonably broad owner set for all scripts. This seems appropriate for a shared tooling area; you can always split out more specific subdirectories later if review load needs to be narrowed.