Comment 5 for bug 681478

On Thursday 25 November 2010 19:26:10 you wrote:
> The bug you describe is not accurate, so we cannot fix it. The data
> being displayed is accurate.
>
> You say the dates should not be the same, but in order for the dates to
> differ, we would have to have a bug that prevented the default reviewer
> from being added when the merge proposal was created.

I think that is the bug then, based on what you're saying. I am simply not
requesting any review from anyone while my MP is "work in progress" so adding
the default reviewer at that stage seems wrong.

> The values don't mean what you clearly think they should mean. We could
> try to describe what they mean better, e.g. "Date requested" => "Date
> selected".
>
> We can remove it, if having a "Date selected" column doesn't make sense.

I was confused by this UI so I think something needs to change. It depends on
what you want to communicate to the user.

For my part, I'd like to see when a MP was moved to "needs review" and I don't
mind how it's done.

> We can display the date that the merge proposal entered the "Needs
> review" state. That's not a per-reviewer field, so it wouldn't appear
> in the review table. If we did that, would we update it each time the
> proposal entered that state, or only the first time?

I think it makes more sense to update each time it enters that state.

Cheers.