On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
Le 22/02/2011 12:46, Chris Nighswonger a écrit :
> Chris can correct me if I'm wrong....
>
> Once the patch has been pushed to a QA branch it is "Pushed for QA."
>
> If it fails QA it should be "Failed QA."
>
> If it passes it should be "Needs sign off" or "Signed off."
>
> Once pushed to master it is "Patch Pushed."
>
> If at any time it fails a test the status should return to "Failed QA."
That's how I read it too, but when "patch pushed", there's something in
master and something that is wrong. So it should not just be "failed QA"
because in this status a patch can be hidden in a middle of many other
"failed QA" that have no consequences in master.

the more I think of it the more I suspect it would be a good idea to
have a new status.


I understand what you are thinking now.

I think if we just followed the use of the status and resolution fields (see http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status) then in the case you suggest we would just re-open the bug.

I wonder if we are not creating solutions for a problem which is really due to a lack of utilizing solutions which already exist?

Kind Regards,
Chris