<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Shirts, Michael (mrs5pt) wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><blockquote type="cite">Code reviewing can be sped up by adding reviewers. The person that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">submits a gerrit patch usually has a decent idea of who might know the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">code sufficiently well to review it. We should however share the load<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and not dump everything on e.g. Berk. I usually add two to three people<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to patches, which means they get mail at least once.<br></blockquote><br>This is something I struggle with -- I don't always know who to add. Berk<br>knows integrators and free energy, Sander knows free energies . . . And I<br>don't know who else.<br><br>So if we had some sort of list of who could review on what subject, that<br>might be good.</div></span></blockquote></div><br><div>We could have special mailing lists or similar for certain groups of reviewers to simplify this. E.g. <a href="mailto:analysis_tools_review@gromacs.org">analysis_tools_review@gromacs.org</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>Erik</div></body></html>