- <p>Developers should participate in code reviews as both reviewers and
- reviewees. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should
- return the favor for someone else. Note that anyone is welcome to review
- and give feedback on a patch, but only people with CVS write access can
- approve it.</p>
+<p>Developers should participate in code reviews as both reviewers and
+ reviewees. If someone is kind enough to review your code, you should return
+ the favor for someone else. Note that anyone is welcome to review and give
+ feedback on a patch, but only people with Subversion write access can approve
+ it.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- _______________________________________________________________________ -->
+<div class="doc_subsection"> <a name="owners">Code Owners</a></div>
+<div class="doc_text">
+
+<p>The LLVM Project relies on two features of its process to maintain rapid
+ development in addition to the high quality of its source base: the
+ combination of code review plus post-commit review for trusted maintainers.
+ Having both is a great way for the project to take advantage of the fact that
+ most people do the right thing most of the time, and only commit patches
+ without pre-commit review when they are confident they are right.</p>
+
+<p>The trick to this is that the project has to guarantee that all patches that
+ are committed are reviewed after they go in: you don't want everyone to
+ assume someone else will review it, allowing the patch to go unreviewed. To
+ solve this problem, we have a notion of an 'owner' for a piece of the code.
+ The sole responsibility of a code owner is to ensure that a commit to their
+ area of the code is appropriately reviewed, either by themself or by someone
+ else. The current code owners are:</p>
+
+<ol>
+ <li><b>Anton Korobeynikov</b>: Exception handling, debug information, and
+ Windows codegen.</li>
+
+ <li><b>Duncan Sands</b>: llvm-gcc 4.2.</li>