Ilmari Karonen wrote: > This made me realize something that's only tangentially related to the > existing thread, namely that we're currently using the "fixme" status in > Code Review for two different kinds of commits: > > 1. commits that are broken and need to be fixed or reverted ASAP, and > 2. commits that do more or less work, but need some followup work. > > An example of the first kind of commit would be something that throws > PHP fatal errors on a substantial fraction of page views. An example of > the second kind might be something as minor as forgetting to update > RELEASE_NOTES. > > Of course, there's also a wide range of shades of gray between these two > extremes, such as changes that work most of the time but break some > unusual setups or use cases. Still, I do think that most "fixme" > commits can be fairly cleanly assigned to one or the other of these > categories, simply by asking oneself "Can I run a usable wiki with this > code as it is?" > > 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). _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
