Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 15:17:29 +0000 From: Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, phabric-admin@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart <rrs@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Phabricator + 'Reviewed by' [was Re: svn commit: r278472 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6] Message-ID: <54DF6709.6030204@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <54DE8F32.2090500@FreeBSD.org> References: <201502091928.t19JSC5P066293@svn.freebsd.org> <38B8D2D0-862A-4DF5-9479-8EC234CF830B@FreeBSD.org> <54DE8F32.2090500@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54DF6709.6030204>