------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply, visit https://hellosplat.com/s/beanbag/tickets/4975/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New update by beasleyr-vmw
For Beanbag, Inc. > RBTools > Ticket #4975
Reply:
Hey Ryan.
Interesting idea. We'll have to mull this one over.
Review Board is probably still where we'd prefer to have default reviewer
logic live, because:
1. Not everyone uses RBTools (there are a lot of in-house clients and
integrations out there using our API)
2. Not everyone upgrades (as an example, your RBTools 2.0 is a major
version behind, soon two major versions)
3. Having default reviewer logic live both client-side and server-side is
messy (and we don't want it to live fully client-side -- we have customer who
require complete server-side control of reviewers)
We've had a long-standing goal to change up how default reviewers work.
Right now they're regex-based, as you noted. The plan though is to let admins
define rules using our Conditions support (which we use for service
integrations). These would allow for anything from regex rules to "look up
default reviewers from this file/URL" to "ask this extension/webhook for
reviewers".
With that in place, an admin could define a rule that allows review
requests posted against one set of repos to use `CODEOWNERS` while review
requests against another set would have very strict default reviewers.
That'd have the additional benefits of:
1. Keeping default reviewer management centralized, working whether RBTools
is used (or whether people are even running latest versions -- yours is a major
version behind, for example)
2. Being able to always use the latest official source for a `CODEOWNERS`
(people may be working locally in older branches that aren't up-to-date)
3. Letting the `CODEOWNERS` inclusion be part of a ruleset
4. Treating `CODEOWNERS` as just one possible source (we have customers
today who use other sources and use hacks to tie into default reviewers)
We have some internal tracking around this work. I'm including this as part
of that task.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"reviewboard-issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/reviewboard-issues/20220815224822.16338.18551%40ip-10-1-54-209.ec2.internal.
