Our convention when sending out a review is: add required individuals 
reviewers to People, and the review group that owns the code to Groups.

This way everybody know who should review the change, and the entire group 
is aware of upcoming changes, which can be used for training.


On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:31:01 PM UTC-5, 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.

Reply via email to