| /third_party/FreeBSD/ |
| D | MAINTAINERS | 4 No locks listed here are valid. The only strict review requirements
38 atf freebsd-testing,jmmv,ngie Pre-commit review requested.
39 ath(4) adrian Pre-commit review requested, send to freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org
40 contrib/libcxxrt dim,emaste Pre-commit review preferred.
41 contrib/llvm-project/compiler-rt dim Pre-commit review preferred.
42 contrib/llvm-project/libcxx dim Pre-commit review preferred.
43 contrib/llvm-project/libunwind dim,emaste,jhb Pre-commit review preferred.
44 contrib/llvm-project/lldb dim,emaste Pre-commit review preferred.
45 contrib/llvm-project/llvm dim Pre-commit review preferred.
46 contrib/llvm-project/openmp dim,emaste Pre-commit review preferred.
[all …]
|
| /third_party/skia/site/docs/user/release/ |
| D | release_notes.md | 16 https://review.skia.org/419336
19 https://review.skia.org/419796
22 https://review.skia.org/419836
32 https://review.skia.org/406140
35 https://review.skia.org/402957
38 https://review.skia.org/401816
42 https://review.skia.org/398222
51 https://review.skia.org/402156
59 https://review.skia.org/378496
68 https://review.skia.org/391856
[all …]
|
| /third_party/skia/ |
| D | RELEASE_NOTES.txt | 39 http://review.skia.org/452558
55 https://review.skia.org/432878
59 https://review.skia.org/430897
62 https://review.skia.org/436565
77 https://review.skia.org/444735
84 https://review.skia.org/419336
87 https://review.skia.org/419796
90 https://review.skia.org/419836
100 https://review.skia.org/406140
103 https://review.skia.org/402957
[all …]
|
| /third_party/skia/third_party/externals/angle2/doc/ |
| D | CodeReviewProcess.md | 3 This page describes the review process for ANGLE reviewers and committers. For
4 instructions on submitting your change list for review, please see
12 1. To review a change, you can either navigate directly to the URL for the CL,
14 your dashboard at https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/
27 3. Once your review is complete, click the "Review" button
29 review (Code-Review +1 or +2).
31 comments and a neutral review. (Code-Review 0)
33 review. (Code-Review -1 or -2)
34 * A +2 code review is required before landing. Only ANGLE committers may
35 provide a +2 code review.
[all …]
|
| D | ContributingCode.md | 25 3. Should be a reasonable size to review. Giant patches are unlikely to get reviewed quickly.
61 * Wait for the bots to report the result on the code review page. The bot results should be
122 1. Go to [https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/new-password][CR-passwd]
126 * Visit [https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/settings][CR-settings] and check the "Full
131 CL with a particular review, and track dependencies between commits.
133 [https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/tools/hooks/commit-msg][commit-msg-hook] and copy
137 not currently be used with changes intended for review.
139 [CR-passwd]: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/new-password
140 [CR-settings]: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/settings
141 [commit-msg-hook]: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/tools/hooks/commit-msg
[all …]
|
| /third_party/flutter/skia/third_party/externals/angle2/doc/ |
| D | CodeReviewProcess.md | 3 This page describes the review process for ANGLE reviewers and committers. For
4 instructions on submitting your change list for review, please see
12 1. To review a change, you can either navigate directly to the URL for the CL,
14 your dashboard at https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/
27 3. Once your review is complete, click the "Review" button
29 review (Code-Review +1 or +2).
31 comments and a neutral review. (Code-Review 0)
33 review. (Code-Review -1 or -2)
34 * A +2 code review is required before landing. Only ANGLE committers may
35 provide a +2 code review.
[all …]
|
| D | ContributingCode.md | 14 3. Should be a reasonable size to review. Giant patches are unlikely to get reviewed quickly.
30 …* Wait for the bots to report the result on the code review page. The bot results should be visibl…
56 …1. Go to [https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/new-password](https://chromium-review.googlesou…
60 …* Visit [https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/settings](https://chromium-review.googlesource…
63 …D tag to each commit, so that it can associate your CL with a particular review, and track depende…
64 …Download the hook from [https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/tools/hooks/commit-msg](https://c…
65 …it, currently bypass git hooks. They should not currently be used with changes intended for review.
83 [ANGLE Gerrit](https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/q/project:angle/angle).
85 …* Take a moment to perform a self-review of your code. Gerrit's viewer makes it easy to see whites…
86 …#selecting-reviewers). If you don't do this, reviewers may not realize you're requesting a review!
[all …]
|
| /third_party/skia/third_party/externals/dawn/docs/ |
| D | contributing.md | 25 Dawn's contributions are submitted and reviewed on [Dawn's Gerrit](https://dawn-review.googlesource…
42 …e remote. To get the `.gitcookies`, log-in to [Dawn's Gerrit](https://dawn-review.googlesource.com)
56 …`/hooks/commit-msg ; mkdir -p $(dirname $f) ; curl -Lo $f https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/t…
62 ## The code review process
64 All submissions, including submissions by project members, require review.
73 ### Pushing changes to code review
75 Before pushing changes to code review, it is better to run `git cl presubmit`
82 In the terminal you will see a URL where code review for this CL will happen.
83 CLs start in the "Work In Progress" state. To start the code review proper,
84 click on "Start Review", add reviewers and click "Send and start review". If
[all …]
|
| /third_party/flutter/skia/site/dev/contrib/ |
| D | submit.md | 65 review! Submit a patch and getting it reviewed is fairly easy with depot tools.
77 ### Uploading changes for review
79 Skia uses the Gerrit code review tool. Skia's instance is [skia-review](http://skia-review.googleso…
92 (https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/4559/), indicating where your changelist
99 ask a committer. After uploading your CL to [Gerrit](https://skia-review.googlesource.com/),
116 ### Request review
118 Go to the supplied URL or go to the code review page and select the **Your**
120 review and click **Reply**. Enter at least one reviewer's email address. Now
121 add any optional notes, and send your change off for review by clicking on
125 _Note_: If you don't see editing commands on the review page, click **Sign in**
[all …]
|
| /third_party/skia/site/docs/dev/contrib/ |
| D | submit.md | 62 review! Submit a patch and getting it reviewed is fairly easy with depot tools.
80 ### Uploading changes for review
82 Skia uses the Gerrit code review tool. Skia's instance is
83 [skia-review](http://skia-review.googlesource.com). Use `git cl` to upload your
96 (https://skia-review.googlesource.com/c/4559/), indicating where your changelist
104 [Gerrit](https://skia-review.googlesource.com/), you may trigger a try job for
121 ### Request review
123 Go to the supplied URL or go to the code review page and select the **Your**
125 review and click **Reply**. Enter at least one reviewer's email address. Now add
126 any optional notes, and send your change off for review by clicking on **Send**.
[all …]
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/range/doc/ |
| D | history_ack.qbk | 22 * Hartmut Kaiser for being review manager
44 * Thorsten Ottosen: review management, design advice, documentation feedback
45 * Eric Niebler: early implementation, and review feedback
46 * Joel de Guzman: review
47 * Mathias Gaunard: review
51 * Arno Schoedl: implementations, and review
52 * Rogier van Dalen: review
53 * Vincente Botet: review, documentation feedback
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/outcome/doc/src/content/videos/ |
| D | _index.md | 14 *Literature review of the WG21 papers relating to deterministically handling failure, and using lib…
25 *Literature review of the several WG21 papers relating to std::expected<T, E>.*
39 after the Outcome v1 peer review. Furthermore the Outcome presented here no longer
40 exists, the peer review demanded a complete rebuild)*
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/geometry/doc/ |
| D | acknowledgments.qbk | 17 First of all we are grateful to Hartmut Kaiser for managing the formal review
18 of this library. Hartmut is an excellent review manager, who intervented when
19 necessary and produced the review report quickly.
28 or at osgeo) about __boost_geometry__, in preview stage, or in review stage,
36 incarnations, redesigns, refactorings, previews, a review and even more
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/outcome/doc/src/content/ |
| D | credits.md | 32 For a second time, Charley Bay stepped up as review manager. Given how much work it was
33 for the v1 review, I can only say **thank you**.
41 review, it's because of Andrzej. Thank you.
55 My heartfelt thanks to Charley Bay for acting as review manager for Outcome in May 2017.
56 It is becoming ever harder to find a Boost review manager, so thank you! My thanks also
58 to discuss `expected<T, E>` during the Outcome peer review to help publicise the review.
65 review, finding many small errata and confusing wording.
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/outcome/doc/src/content/history/ |
| D | _index.md | 16 Boost peer review of v1: done, des2, after des1, 30d
17 Outcome v2 (complete redesign based on first review feedback): done, des3, after des2, 2018-01
18 Boost peer review of v2: done, des4, after des3, 30d
19 Outcome v2.1 (changes from second review): active, des5, 2018-03, 2019-04
57 maturity through use in other code. Summer 2015 saw the Boost peer review of AFIO v1 which
58 was roundly rejected. After considering the ample review feedback, it was realised that
65 ready for Boost peer review in Q1 2017 which involved a repeated sequence of complete rewrites
84 primacy. The final rewrite of the documentation before peer review submission was one
90 Almost three years after its beginning, Outcome v1 finally went before Boost peer review
92 done in recent years, with over 800 pieces of review feedback submitted. It was by consensus
[all …]
|
| /third_party/flutter/skia/third_party/externals/angle2/ |
| D | codereview.settings | 2 CODE_REVIEW_SERVER: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com
4 TRYSERVER_GERRIT_URL: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com
|
| /third_party/skia/third_party/externals/dawn/ |
| D | codereview.settings | 3 CODE_REVIEW_SERVER: https://dawn-review.googlesource.com
5 TRYSERVER_GERRIT_URL: https://dawn-review.googlesource.com
|
| /third_party/skia/third_party/externals/angle2/ |
| D | codereview.settings | 2 CODE_REVIEW_SERVER: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com
4 TRYSERVER_GERRIT_URL: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/numeric/odeint/doc/ |
| D | acknowledgements.qbk | 18 * Steven Watanabe for managing the Boost review process.
19 * All people who participated in the odeint review process on the Boost mailing list.
22 * Joachim Faulhaber for motivating us to participate in the Boost review process and many detailed …
|
| /third_party/skia/third_party/externals/dawn/src/dawn_node/ |
| D | README.md | 112 …review.googlesource.com/c/dawn/+/64907/5/src/dawn_node/binding/Converter.cpp#167), [2](https://daw…
113 … aid in debugging. This can be extremely slow. [discussion](https://dawn-review.googlesource.com/c…
114 …d result in a TypeError "Illegal constructor". [discussion](https://dawn-review.googlesource.com/c…
115 …romises". This should return the same promise. [discussion](https://dawn-review.googlesource.com/c…
120 … `src/` for `dawn_node`, but outside for Dawn. [discussion](https://dawn-review.googlesource.com/c…
122 …awn implements the device / adapter creation path properly](https://dawn-review.googlesource.com/c…
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/beast/doc/qbk/01_intro/ |
| D | 1a_bishop_fox.qbk | 31 combination with targeted source code review to thoroughly identify
34 Next, analyses of the scan results are combined with manual review to
36 addition, the team performs a review of the application architecture and
38 manual exploitation and review of these issues to validate the findings.
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/endian/doc/endian/ |
| D | history.adoc | 15 ### Changes requested by formal review
18 during the formal review. The issues that were required to be resolved before
19 a mini-review are shown in *bold* below, with the resolution indicated.
76 …gated during development of the Endian library should be put up for mini-review for inclusion in t…
77 Not done yet. Will be handled as a separate min-review soon after the Endian
78 mini-review.
90 ### Other changes since formal review
142 Peter Dimov pointed out during the mini-review that getting and setting basic
146 mini-review posting].
149 Peter Dimov pointed suggested during the mini-review that throwing an exception
|
| /third_party/node/deps/npm/node_modules/npm-audit-report/reporters/ |
| D | detail.js | 55 resolves.forEach(({id, path}) => acc.review.add(`${id}::${path}`))
58 }, {advisories: new Set(), major: new Set(), review: new Set()}) property
66 if (counts.review.size) {
67 const rev = counts.review.size
|
| /third_party/boost/libs/phoenix/doc/ |
| D | acknowledgment.qbk | 14 Phoenix), and guided Phoenix from the initial review of V2 to the release of V3.
15 # Eric Niebler did a 2.0 pre-release review and wrote some range related code
32 # Daryle Walker did a 2.0 pre-release review.
|
| /third_party/skia/third_party/externals/swiftshader/ |
| D | CONTRIBUTING.txt | 12 the CLA until after you've submitted your code for review and a member has
20 All submissions, including submissions by project members, require review.
22 Information on how to sumbit changes for review is provided in README.md.
|