RFC: Review with Flags (Version 3)

[Hans de Goede]

Christian Iseli wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:41:23 -0500, Warren Togami wrote:
>> 2) BLANK means review not requested.  ? means review requested.  This 
>> makes it easier to query, because querying for BLANK is a bit inefficient.
>> (Good idea, bad idea?)
> 
> bad idea IMHO.  Filing the ticket *does* mean I want a review.  I much
> prefer nirik's suggestion:
> blank -> I want a reviewer
> ? -> normal review under way (can use NEEDINFO if wanted)
> + -> ACCEPT
> - -> something bad happened (stalled review, bad license, ...)
> 
> The rest sounds fine.
> 

+1 Although I'm not sure about the BLANK vs ? difference, don't we 
already have NEW versus ASSIGNED for this?

Regards,

Hans