ci(component-owners): try using component-owners

[StaticRocket]

Try using component-owners instead of CODEOWNERS since the latter requires all listed users have write permission to the repo.

This only requires that they were a previous contributor.

Closes #8

[cshilwant]

++ @DhruvaG2000 , @praneethbajjuri , @uditkumarti , @aniket-l

IMO, This looks better!
We can use this approach until GitHub resolves - https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/23042#discussioncomment-3238768

@StaticRocket I'm still thinking to have CODEOWNERS file with following content,

* <list of code owners>

Reason - With component-owners, since reviewers won't have write access they would still need folks with more than write privileges to integrate the PR

(For instance - for any change in /source/buildroot/, the reviewers under ./ won't be notified)
So, CODEOWNERS file can be used for the same.

[StaticRocket]

That's fair. Assuming the two don't conflict I think it would make sense to let CODEOWNERS pull in the maintainers and let this tack on the granular component owners.

I'll work with @praneethbajjuri and try to track down some specific component owners. The code owners file you added should be a good catch all in the meantime.

Consider this PR a draft for now.

[cshilwant]

@StaticRocket Sounds like a plan. I have updated #31 to just include maintainers for now.