reviewer attribution

[Philip Race]

I can appreciate that there are complex changes that take weeks of back 
and forth and
maybe someone was actively reviewing and maybe the major reviewer, and 
just happened
not to be there at the every end when everything is ready and might be 
miffed they aren't credited.

-phil.

On 11/17/20, 5:01 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
> My experience with this on JavaFX is that once people get used to the 
> idea of doing the review on GitHub, it isn't really a problem. I view 
> this as (mostly) a step forward not a step backwards, since the review 
> approval is explicit and you don't need to guess whether a reviewer is 
> satisfied that all their concerns have been addressed.
>
> Having said that, I do like the idea of being able to manually add a 
> "non-counting" reviewer manually, which is useful for those 
> interacting with the mailing list. That seems to be working well. 
> However, once a reviewer has done a review on GitHub, and has 
> requested changes, I think it would be wrong to override that.
>
> -- Kevin
>
>
> On 11/17/2020 12:58 AM, Roland Westrelin wrote:
>> Hi Skara Developers,
>>
>> My experience with Skara has so far been painless. Thanks for the great
>> work.
>>
>> I noticed one of my PRs has 3 reviewers listed on the right hand size
>> under "reviewers" but a single one listed in the comments. Only that one
>> reviewer has approved the change with the github web interface. Change
>> is cleared for integration so I could push it without proper reviewer
>> attribution. I tried the /reviewer command to force the system to record
>> the 2 other reviewers but that doesn't help.
>>
>> To me, this feels like a step backward from what we had with mercurial
>> where we were in full control of the reviewer list. There's a risk that
>> even careful developers could push a change without proper reviewer
>> attribution. Also, in the openjdk project, we largely trust developers
>> for doing the right thing. In that spirit, allowing the /reviewer
>> command full power on the reviewer list would make sense for the rare
>> case where it's obvious the change is good to go but someone hasn't
>> explicitly approved it. I feel it's better than having to chase all
>> reviewers to have them click a button or integrating a change without
>> all involved reviewers credited.
>>
>> The PR is:
>>
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/1003
>>
>> but I emailed reviewers that were not credited to ask them to approve
>> the change so the reviewer list is in the process of being "fixed".
>>
>> Roland.
>>
>