As more of a point of philosophy of code review also, I (and, I think, my teammates) would say that diffs should be reviewed by someone who both:

1. Understands the relevant code
2. Did not write the code themselves

In other words, the combination of expertise + different perspective is of value beyond each component individually. If you believe that, then B or C should review A's diff in this case.

Thanks for the detailed response! We hadn't considered that people might tamper with mirror remotes, so you make a very good point there that our proposed change might cause a regression. And you're quite right that logging is our problem.

I actually wasn't sure which to pick myself, since it's not as specific as most bug reports, but it seemed more like undesirable behavior of an existing feature, as opposed to a new feature. Would it be more appropriate to consider this as a feature request instead?

Thanks! That should be perfect.

Hey, we're also interested in this by way of T12545 (which was merged in above). A couple of our teams have historically assigned their oncall/tech-debt tasks to a mailing list user, and used the priority-sorted view of those tasks to run their oncall shifts. That workflow no longer works with the reverse-chronological sort.

Us right now:

Our users are also missing this, since they can't tell whether they're a blocking/lone reviewer from the e-mail.

Hey, one of our teams is experiencing this issue as well - many of their tasks include the name of a flag with a lot of punctuation, such as subgrowth_biz_buy_order_summary. At some point in the not-terribly-distant past, searching for these flags started to return 0 results.

You're right, works fine for me against a Phacility test instance. Huh.

They said it's a definite improvement. Nice!

Thanks for the quick response! I'll send that last image over to our user, and see if it's an improvement for them as well.

Okay, after some tests, looks like the user has deuteranopia. Consistent with what you have there.

Uh, I'll see if they can take an online test to narrow it down further.

They don't know what type they have more specifically than red-green, unfortunately.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. To be clear, the user doesn't have an issue reading the text; they have an issue distinguishing between red highlight and green highlight. I think it would be even more confusing without any highlighting at all.

Damn, that was fast! This should be a perfect solution - thank you for your help.

Absolutely makes sense - provided some more background on the problem. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Ok, appreciate the feedback - I'll try to tackle it in a bit more detail.