On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: > I was going to chime in and say that "new" seems like the right state to go > into, but what about the (very common) case where a later checkin fixes the > original "fixme"? Can't the committer put the original checkin in > "resolved", and redirect any further discussion to the followup checkin > (which should remain "new")?
Often "fixme" is set when there's only one detail of the commit that's bad. In that case, the rest of the commit still needs to be reviewed, and setting it to "resolved" will obscure that. The fix for the bad aspect of the commit needs to be reviewed separately. Personally, I think we should just ditch "resolved" as a possible status. If there are still parts to review, set to "new". If it was set to "ok" and then the flaw was found and fixed, set back to "ok". If the entire commit was flawed and the new commit supersedes it, set to "reverted". The fix should be "new" in all cases. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
