On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:20 AM Dr. Matthias St. Pierre < matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com> wrote:
> > ... I think we should change that. This does not mean that a reviewer > who made a change request > > two months ago and lost interest is forced to re-review, only that such > stale reviews must be dismissed > > explicitly, if the reviewer does not respond to a re-review request > within a certain time period. > > I would refine this procedure as follows: the team member who intends to > do the merge (the "merger"), > needs to issue re-review requests for all unresolved change requests > (there is a spinning button next the > name of the reviewer to do this). The person who receives the re-review > request can either dismiss its > review or indicate that it intends to review within x hours. Otherwise, > the merger can dismiss the stale review. > > Sorry, it seems a bit overengineering for me. I'd prefer a procedure with explicit hold and explanation in the comments. -- SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
