On 2/14/2015 9:17 AM, Steven Hartland wrote: > > On 13/02/2015 23:56, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 2/9/2015 3:45 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >>>> Commented upon by hiren and sbruno >>>> See Phabricator D1777 for more details. >>>> >>>> Commented upon by hiren and sbruno >>>> Reviewed by: adrian, jhb and bz >>> I have not reviewed this; as a matter of fact you are aware that I >>> still wanted to do that. >>> >> Something about Phabricator is not jiving with our commit terminology. >> This has happened before as well with other commits. I'm sure everyone >> is good-intentioned as well. >> >> There's not 1 person on D1777 who has 'accepted' it. That is what >> warrants a 'Reviewed by' to me. >> >> It's clear to me, but seems unclear to others. I really think the >> reviewer list needs to be split up. Rather than using icons, use >> separate lists. Reviewers requested: accepted: commented: changes >> requested:. > I don't think it needs to be split up, that feels unnecessary, if > someone hasn't accepted it then they haven't review it period IMO.
Yes I too think it's obvious, yet I've seen at least 2 commits where the reviewed by line was essentially a lie. It's in SVN forever now with those names stamped as reviewers. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
