Thanks for the advice everyone!  It seems that many RB community members use 
individuals vs review groups to mimic the ‘To:’ vs ‘Cc:’ convention.  While not 
a direct replacement, (e.g. no easy way to cc an individual) I’m happy to give 
this convention a try for now since it doesn’t require any extra machinations.


From: Igor Berger []
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:10 PM
Cc: Javins, Walt
Subject: Re: Required vs Optional Reviewers

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 

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
Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons:
Happy user? Let us know at
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 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to