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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54DF6709.6030204>