Happy-melon wrote: > > "Platonides" <platoni...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:imm5c2$rib$1...@dough.gmane.org... >> Ilmari Karonen wrote: >>> >>> I think it might be a good idea to split these two cases into separate >>> states. My suggestion, off the top of my head, would be to leave >>> "fixme" for the latter and add a new "broken" status for the former. >> >> +1 >> We should also add another state for fixmes that are not about problems >> in the revision itself, but request for improving more code (eg. you >> should fix the same thing -added in MW 1.4- in other 10 locations of the >> code, too). > > That sort of thing should be a tag, because it is orthogonal to (and can > actually change independently of) the status of the revision itself. It > would make it impossible to 'ok' the revision without losing the 'extend' > information, which is exactly the opposite of what we want. > > --HM
Right. We should use an improve tag and stop using fixmes for that. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
