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:
- commits that are broken and need to be fixed or reverted ASAP, and
- 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).