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).