On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:28 PM, John Wilkins <drupal.user@albin.net> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Dries Buytaert wrote:
So we're choosing sub-optimal status fields to preserve backward compatibility? That is very non-Drupal ...
The whole 'tested and reviewed by the community' stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn't mind to have us switch back to 'ready to be committed'.
But as we discussed in July (http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/2007-July/025007.html ), newcomers think that "ready to be committed" means that it WILL get committed. So the "ready to be committed" wording doesn't make a whole lot of sense to them.
From July:
We need a solution [to the RTBC problem] that naturally aligns new developers expectations with how core development is actually done.
I agree. But I don't see why we need to preserve "backwards compatibility." Lets say I'm new, I go to the drupal issue queue and find an old issue that mentions "Marking RTBC." In that unlikely case that I actually care we could have a handbook page or forum discussion explaining what it means. I could easily find it by searching I'm sure. And likely there will be some questions but... I think Ready for comment(RFC) or Ready for review(RFR) have connotations that fit in line with what RTBC really means. IE, we're looking to have I high level peer review or review by the commiters.
'reviewed and tested by the community' is /slightly/ better (IMO) than the old RTBC meaning because it doesn't imply (to newcomers) that committers should commit everything that is RTBC.
BUT... I don't think any 4-5 word phrase is adequate to explain when an issue should be marked RTBC.
It would be much more useful to have a #description text below the Priority and Status pull-down menus that briefly describes those fields and links to the full Priority and Status definitions. For example in the line directly below the "Status" pull-down menu, place something like this: Descriptions of how to use Priority and Status levels can be found in the Contributing to Development Handbook [http://drupal.org/node/10259].
See this feature request: http://drupal.org/node/159457
Wouldn't that be much more useful than reverting RTBC?
I think it would be a great place to help explain a change or explain what's going on. -- James