On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla(a)robla.net> wrote:
I was going to chime in and say that "new"
seems like the right state to go
into, but what about the (very common) case where a later checkin fixes the
original "fixme"? Can't the committer put the original checkin in
"resolved", and redirect any further discussion to the followup checkin
(which should remain "new")?
Often "fixme" is set when there's only one detail of the commit that's
bad. In that case, the rest of the commit still needs to be reviewed,
and setting it to "resolved" will obscure that. The fix for the bad
aspect of the commit needs to be reviewed separately.
Personally, I think we should just ditch "resolved" as a possible
status. If there are still parts to review, set to "new". If it was
set to "ok" and then the flaw was found and fixed, set back to "ok".
If the entire commit was flawed and the new commit supersedes it, set
to "reverted". The fix should be "new" in all cases.