Update codeowners file

[sarahchen6]

What Does This Do

Update CODEOWNERS file such that

• Shared tooling and modules are explicitly owned by @DataDog/apm-java - there is no longer a default team
• Product ownership is updated to include all paths under their domain

Motivation

RFC for "CODEOWNER File Expectations Across dd-trace-* Repositories": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sRETEtnOf-ewrfuf_eQCs1nL8wbht2N7Dm9m5nrMJ1Y/edit?usp=sharing

Ensure that all code is properly and explicitly owned and protected by teams with the most context in that domain.

Additional Notes

In conjunction with these changes, all-files-are-owned via Datadog’s MergeGate mechanism should be enabled - this ensures that all new and existing files have assigned codeowners, according to the Code Ownership Service

See this CI Opt page to ensure we don't lack test coverage. Note that the remaining files with UNKNOWN source files are addressed in #12259.

Contributor Checklist

• Format the title according to the contribution guidelines
• Assign the type: and (comp: or inst:) labels in addition to any other useful labels
• Avoid using close, fix, or any linking keywords when referencing an issue
  Use solves instead, and assign the PR milestone to the issue
• Update the CODEOWNERS file on source file addition, migration, or deletion
• Update public documentation with any new configuration flags or behaviors
• Once approved, use merge queue to merge the PR

Jira ticket: [PROJ-IDENT]

[dd-octo-sts]

🟢 Java Benchmark SLOs — All performance SLOs passed

Suite	Status
Startup	🟢 pass

SLO thresholds are defined here based on automatically generated metrics. A warning is raised when results are within 5% of the threshold.

PR vs. master results

Scenario	Candidate	master	Δ (95% CI of mean)
startup:insecure-bank:iast:Agent	14.89 s	14.76 s	[-0.1%; +1.9%] (no difference)
startup:insecure-bank:tracing:Agent	13.72 s	13.70 s	[-0.7%; +1.0%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:appsec:Agent	17.57 s	17.37 s	[+0.2%; +2.1%] (maybe worse)
startup:petclinic:iast:Agent	17.40 s	17.58 s	[-1.8%; -0.2%] (maybe better)
startup:petclinic:profiling:Agent	17.53 s	17.41 s	[-0.5%; +2.0%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:sca:Agent	17.09 s	17.20 s	[-1.6%; +0.3%] (no difference)
startup:petclinic:tracing:Agent	16.54 s	16.72 s	[-2.0%; -0.2%] (maybe better)

Commit: 43106844 · CI Pipeline · Benchmarking Platform UI

---

Load and DaCapo benchmarks can be triggered manually in the GitLab pipeline. Results will appear in the Benchmarking Platform UI after completion.

[datadog-prod-us1-4]

More details

Each current top-level path has an explicit owner. The changed product patterns keep or increase the intended test ownership.

Was this helpful? React 👍 or 👎

_{Open Bits AI session}

_{🤖 Datadog Autotest · Commit b3e41bd · What is Autotest? · @DataDog review to ask questions · Any feedback? Reach out in #autotest}

[PerfectSlayer]

Few suggestions to move tooling under the platform umbrella to avoid product teams having to review them, and reassign few parts to SDK cap too.

Overall, do we need the default catch all for the core modules? Won't it defeat the need to create codeownership entries every time a product will add its features there?

[bric3]

LGTM

What about adding a cartouche that gives a guide of rules to apply when modifying this file, like using */* for source set and language, etc.

---

Just a thought, I wonder if it is possible to make lang platform team to co-own with the other responsible team every build.gradle / build.gradle.kts files (maybe others like the lockfiles). From the capabilities of the CODEOWNERS file it can't be done easily without adding a lot of rules.

[PerfectSlayer]

Just a thought, I wonder if it is possible to make lang platform team to co-own with the other responsible team every build.gradle / build.gradle.kts files (maybe others like the lockfiles). From the capabilities of the CODEOWNERS file it can't be done easily without adding a lot of rules.

Yes, that's a good idea consider the amount of effort invested here.
CODEOWNERS is not a great file format but we don't have the choice (and we can't even come with better solution as this must be a common solution 😢 )

[jpbempel]

LGTM for debugger

[sarahchen6]

Just a thought, I wonder if it is possible to make lang platform team to co-own with the other responsible team every build.gradle / build.gradle.kts files (maybe others like the lockfiles). From the capabilities of the CODEOWNERS file it can't be done easily without adding a lot of rules.

It makes sense to me to have LP own these files. Whatever module they're in will likely already have the corresponding codeowner team requested for review. This makes the CODEOWNER rules much more straightforward too since it's last write wins. cc @bric3 @PerfectSlayer

[sarahchen6]

Given codeowner review requirements to be enabled on Monday, I'll go ahead with merging this PR. Any subsequent changes can be made in a follow-up PR!

[sarahchen6]

/merge

[gh-worker-devflow-routing-ef8351]

View all feedbacks in Devflow UI.

2026-08-21 19:06:31 UTC ℹ️ Start processing command /merge

---

2026-08-21 19:06:38 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: pull request added to the queue

The expected merge time in master is approximately 2h (p90).

---

2026-08-21 19:57:38 UTC ℹ️ MergeQueue: This merge request was merged