Two quotes from the last weeks: Krenair in #mediawiki on Nov 30 22:46:47: "andre__, what is stopping us from making a 'patch in gerrit' bug status with a link to the change?" Ryan Kaldari in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42470#c4 : "I use Bugzilla as a to-do list. [...] If Bugzilla had a 'Waiting for Merge' status, this wouldn't be as much of an issue." 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"). I'm proposing adding a new status like PATCH_TO_REVIEW or WAITING_FOR_MERGE or FIX_AWAITING_MERGE or REVIEW_IN_PROGRESS or something like this (bikeshed, yay!). Probably the first. The status would replace the "patch-in-gerrit" keyword and you would set it in Bugzilla when you have pushed a patch into Gerrit for review that is expected to fix the reported bug. (Not sure what to do about partial fixes, but that's a cornercase.) Obviously, once the patch got merged you'd close the corresponding bug report as RESOLVED FIXED. No changes here. "Bug report life cycle": The new status could be set from {UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED, REOPENED} and could be transfered into {UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED, REOPENED, RESOLVED}. Comments / arguments? andre PS: Underscores in the status name are needed as far as I know. Please keep opinions for other email threads that are about renaming some other Bugzilla stati, or better linking between Bugzilla and Gerrit, or automatic status setting in Bugzilla when a patch is in Gerrit, or somehow distinguishing in Bugzilla between the situations "fix merged into code repository", "fix released in MW tarball" and "fix deployed on an MW server". I hereby thank you kindly! :) -- Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/