RE: Required vs Optional Reviewers
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. Walt From: Igor Berger [mailto:codewiz...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 2:10 PM To: reviewboard@googlegroups.com 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 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.
Re: Required vs Optional Reviewers
Also, on review notification emails, people get email to them and the group gets CCed. Which fits what the OP asked for. -- 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.
Re: Required vs Optional Reviewers
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.
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 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.
