On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 30, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
Can we just set it to an empty string and let the numbers and hand-written comment speak for themselves?
I think this will be more confusing. You need some text for the radio field.
In any case these summaries are not meant to replace a comment and I've never implied that they should. You should always take time to explain your review, especially if it's a -1/-2.
-Chad
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
Can we just set it to an empty string and let the numbers and hand-written comment speak for themselves?
Yes the radio buttons would have the +2/+1/0/-1/-2, just like they after submission.
On Mar 30, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Chad wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
I couldn't agree more. So far all proposal make implications that sometimes simply aren't appropriate. Either they leave no room for fixing it ("Don't submit it"), or are too much foccused on fixing something small, but implying the overal intention is wanted ("Needs improvement") etc. etc.
Perhaps we could go back to the all-encompassing "fixme." If we did that, I'd suggest adjusting the other ones to one-word summaries as well.
-Chad
I'm not sure "fixme" is entire appropiate either :D
A gerrit review rejection (which is what a down vote suggests if it is unfixable or not fixed) effectively covers both "fixme" and "reverted" (when compared to how we review SVN).
If something is unfixable, not fixed, or flat out not acceptable, then that's what Abandon is for.
"fixme" is no different than "Needs improvement" (except stronger, maybe).
Perhaps, but it does help blur the line between "this is broken" and "this needs improvement."
-Chad