On Dec 13, 2012, at 1:25 AM, Matthew Flaschen <mflasc...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 04:15 PM, Sébastien Santoro wrote: >>> Currently there is a "patch-in-gerrit" keyword in Bugzilla. When a bug >>> report ends up as RESOLVED FIXED there usually had been a codefix in >>> Gerrit that got merged. Hence "patch in gerrit" could be considered >>> another state on the journey of a bug from reporting to fixing. >>> And Bugzilla allows adding stati (stuff like "NEW" or "RESOLVED"). >> >> ASSIGNED seems perfect for me. It's ASSIGNED, this mean there are work >> going to be done, or done. > > That doesn't make sense to me, since I can be assigned something, and > actively working on it, but not have submitted a Gerrit at all yet (let > alone one almost ready to be merged). > > Matt Flaschen I agree with Sébastien. ASSIGNED is enough. I don't see the significance of whether there is a Gerrit change yet? If there is no Gerrit change, it doesn't mean nobody is working on it. And if there is a change, it may not be a good one and/or one written by someone else (e.g. someone else can give it a try, send the change-id to bugzilla, but the assignee hasn't reviewed it yet and/or abandoned it). Then we'd have to keep that in sync (back from this "PENDING" to ASSIGNED after the change is rejected?). Only more maintenance and bureaucracy for imho no obvious gain or purpose. The queryable state is ASSIGNED (and maybe, though I personally don't find it useful, the keyword "patch-in-gerrit). And for any further details just open the bug and read it. -- Krinkle _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
