RFR: Updated Code Owners for JDK 20 [v2]

[Phil Race]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 17:03:33 GMT, Jesper Wilhelmsson <jwilhelm at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This should be done after each release to make sure the list is kept up to date.
>
> Jesper Wilhelmsson has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Fixed comments

Changes requested by prr (Author).

src/guide/code-owners.md line 10:

> 8: * Client
> 9:   * Client Libs: [`client-libs-dev`](https://mail.openjdk.org/mailman/listinfo/client-libs-dev)
> 10:   * Project Wakefield: [`wakefield-dev`](https://mail.openjdk.org/mailman/listinfo/wakefield-dev)

I'm a bit surprised to see projects like Wakefield and Panama as "areas" .. not sure I understand the logic of including
these here at all.

src/guide/code-owners.md line 194:

> 192: * `jdk.jfr` – JFR
> 193: * `jdk.jlink` – JDK Tools
> 194: * `jdk.jpackage` – Client Libs

"client libs" != "Client" 

Client libs is about the desktop APIs used at run time.
jpackage is an installer technology - for desktops and servers
jdk.jpackage would be better as Core Libs like you have for the jpackage tool, or left as is. Client Libs is definitely wrong.
The existing words try to say "this is the implementation of the jpackage tool, which happens to be owned by the client team but isn't at all a part of client desktop". 
The issue is that this is installer technology and historically all installers were owned by client, since the desktop installers were the main focus.
You should think of this as being a case of wearing two hats.

-------------

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/guide/pull/103#pullrequestreview-1431268322
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/guide/pull/103#discussion_r1196878600
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/guide/pull/103#discussion_r1196885379