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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
