On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 02:09 +0100, Krinkle wrote:
I agree with Sébastien. ASSIGNED is enough. I don't see the significance of whether there is a Gerrit change yet?
See below. Plus as Bugzilla already has a "patch-in-gerrit" keyword (and other "patch*" ones) so somebody in the past had interest to identify bug reports that have a patch in Gerrit, for whatever reason. I'd like to know the reasons.
Then we'd have to keep that in sync (back from this "PENDING" to ASSIGNED after the change is rejected?).
Same currently with the "patch-in-gerrit" keyword, so neither better nor worse than before.
Only more maintenance and bureaucracy for imho no obvious gain or purpose.
A bug report that has a publically available initial patch, even if the patch still needs lots of rework, is closer to getting fixed than with no code at all. Plus old rotting patches might be another entry point for some people to pick up and contribute.
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.
ASSIGNED status is meant to express that somebody works on fixing a bug. Some assignees give up and forget to reset ASSIGNED. Nobody else can start working on it [2] and only the assignee her/himself could answer if s/he's still working on a bugfix. For patches at least *anybody* can easily query the status of a patch in Gerrit and see that it's rotting. The real status and progress is not only in somebody's head or on somebody's harddisk.
andre