To mimic your email practice, about creating review groups containing all reviewers and then specifically calling out "required" reviewers in target-people ?
You could enforce that policy via an external API or an extension. We don't use the above policy exactly, but we do have a script that applies our policy in order to close reviews. Hope that helps. Mark On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:31:01 PM UTC-8, Javins, Walt wrote: > > Has there been any discussion around ‘required’ vs ‘optional’ reviewers > on a rrq? > > > > 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. > > > > Thanks, > > Walt > -- 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 "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
