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
--
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/