Hi Anton, Thank you for bringing this significant concern here.
I'm going to use this field in total correspondence with assignee field usage. We don't set assignee unless someone agrees to be a developer for that feature. Otherwise, it is better to keep an issue as unassigned. Same implies to the reviewer field. So reviewer is someone, who is ready and going to do the review. Unless we not sure who will do a review, mention process continues to work. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c6013b99940de32aae831a0b76e8fd53febe5040e9e0d67abb4f62a5@%3Cdev.community.apache.org%3E чт, 27 сент. 2018 г. в 18:23, Anton Vinogradov <a...@apache.org>: > Currently, you may ask for a review by mention someone and asking him to > review. > And this approach looks good to me. > > In case we'll invent reviewer field who will set the reviewer? > It's NOT ok to set somebody as a reviewer! > You should ask somebody to be a reviewer first. > And in case he agrees he will just make a review. No reason to set a > useless field in that case. > > вт, 25 сент. 2018 г. в 19:39, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > I like the idea. > > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:25 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Ignite Enthusiasts, > > > > > > During the planning of release 2.7, I've faced with the situation when > it > > > is completely not clear who is going to review ticket. > > > > > > Usually, we do not reassign tickets to a reviewer, but info about > planned > > > reviewer can be very useful for all reviewers, who select some > > contribution > > > to pick up into a review. > > > > > > Please share your vision about the idea of adding a reviewer field > (type: > > > user) in addition to the assignee field. > > > > > > If we agree I will try to ask the Infra team on Friday 28.09. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > >
