Has there been any discussion around 'required' vs 'optional' reviewers on a
Prior to Review Board, we would use email for CR, and could specify the 'To:'
vs 'Cc:' headers to communicate the importance that a particular individual or
group look at a piece of code. E.g. A lot of time we'll put new team members
on a CR to help them learn the code/development standards by observing, but
their yea/nay isn't strictly necessary. I've had several of my consumers ask
about implementing similar features, and I was wondering if the RB community
has tackled similar issues or requests.
I searched the mailing list archives, and came across many policy enforcement
threads which shed a lot of light on the issue, and RB's somewhat hands-off
approach given the complexities of different orgs different CR policies. Even
so, I'm interested to know what other community members have implemented to
handle 'these people must review the code' whereas 'these people may be
interested' in the patch.
Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/
Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.