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.
We need a solution [to the RTBC problem] that naturally aligns new
expectations with how core development is actually done.
'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
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?