Presumably it supports multiple reviews for a patch, in which case I think we're fine.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:03 PM Gregory Szorc <g...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:51 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > > On Friday 2018-04-20 14:23 -0700, Kris Maglione wrote: > > > For a lot of these patches, my opinion is only really critical for > > certain > > > architectural aspects, or implementation aspects at a few critical > > points. > > > There are other reviewers who are perfectly qualified to do a more > > detailed > > > review of the specifics of the patch, and have more spare cycles to > > devote > > > to it. Essentially, what's needed from me in these cases is a > > super-review, > > > which I can do fairly easily, but instead I become a bottleneck for the > > code > > > review as well. > > > > > > So, for the areas where I have this responsibility, I'd like to > > institute a > > > policy that certain types of changes need a final super-review from me, > > but > > > should get a detailed code review from another qualified reviewer when > > that > > > makes sense. > > > > I think it's reasonable to use the super-review flag for this sort > > of high-level or design review, at least until we come up with a > > better name for it (and make a new flag, and retire the old one). I > > don't think the super-review policy (as written) is meaningful > > today. > > > FWIW I'm pretty sure Phabricator won't support the super-review flag. And > since we're aiming to transition all reviews to Phabricator... > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
