Last modified: 2014-02-11 11:17:58 UTC
I'm not sure about details of what the right behavior would be, but needing to "fixme" a patch is such a common use case that we should be supporting it with something a bit more concrete than the "WIP" commit summary prefix. To -1 or -2 your own code is a decent workaround, but that doesn't communicate much about the actual status. I guess, if we were able to put a patch back into the "draft" state, I would like it to disappear from the main watchlist, it could not be merged, and draftiness would imply something about your intention to fix the damn thing one day.
> To -1 or -2 your own code is a decent workaround, but that doesn't > communicate much about the actual status. When voting, just use the comment field to describe in greater detail why you voted -1 or -2 on your own change. That should serve the purpose just fine. The "WIP" prefix in the commit message's first line is not special to gerrit, so you can replace it with what ever seems appropriate to you. Although "fixme" sounds confusing to me, you can of course prefix by "fixme", if you choose to. > I guess, if we were able > to put a patch back into the "draft" state, [...] I doubt that going back to draft state would get love from upstream. Generally, upstream does not like the current state of drafts too much, as they raise complexity a lot. Going back and forth between draft states, would raise the complexity way further. Also, drafts come with different visibility. Allowing to go back and forth between draft state strikes me as confusing for users: “Hey where is that draft gone? It was there a minute ago” > I would like it to > disappear from the main watchlist, [...] If you intend to fix it soon, the “WIP” prefix typically works fine. If you do not intend to fix it, just abandon the change. That makes the change disappear from most of the change lists. Star the change, so you can find it easier afterwards. > [...] it could not be merged, and Vote CR-2. That hides the submit button for people.
