-|The name and e-mail address of the person that submitted the fix; for developers, just the username on the FreeBSD cluster.
+|This has been deprecated with git; submitted patches should have the author set by using `git commit --author` with a full name and valid email.
-Typically not used with Git; submitted patches should
-have the author set by using `git commit --author`.
-
-If the submitter is the maintainer of the port being committed, include "(maintainer)" after the email address.
+|`Reviewed by:`
+|The name and e-mail address of the person or people that reviewed the change; for developers, just the username on the FreeBSD cluster. If a patch was submitted to a mailing list for review, and the review was favorable, then just include the list name. If the reviewer is not a member of the project, provide the name, email, and if ports an external role like maintainer:
+a|
-Avoid obfuscating the email address of the submitter as this adds additional work when searching logs.
+Reviewed by a developer:
+[source,shell]
+....
+Reviewed by: username
-|`Reviewed by:`
-|The name and e-mail address of the person or people that reviewed the change; for developers, just the username on the FreeBSD cluster. If a patch was submitted to a mailing list for review, and the review was favorable, then just include the list name.
+Reviewed by a ports maintainer that is not a developer:
+[source,shell]
+....
+Reviewed by: Full Name <valid@email> (maintainer)
+....
|`Tested by:`
|The name and e-mail address of the person or people that tested the change; for developers, just the username on the FreeBSD cluster.
@@ -2826,7 +2831,7 @@
There are several cases where approval is customary:
* while a new committer is under mentorship
-* commits to an area of the tree to which you do not usually commit
+* commits to an area of the tree covered by the LOCKS file (src)
* during a release cycle
* committing to a repo where you do not hold a commit bit (e.g. src committer committing to docs)