Depending on the patch I'm making, sometimes I don't put any reviewers in my commit message, but rather I submit and add the reviewers on Phabricator. This is useful for two reasons:
* Herald will automatically add some reviewers that are necessary.
* I may not have the reviewer name memorized, so being able to search is helpful.
When `moz-phab` submits my patch, it sees that there are no reviewers on my revision, and it decides that this is a WIP patch. The downside of this is that it overwrites the state of the real Phabricator revision, which means:
* If the patch had reviewers attached and was accepted, then:
* It's moved back to "Changes Planned".
* A "WIP: " prefix is placed at the front.
I think that `moz-phab` should check the state of the revision on Phabricator. If it has has reviewers assigned and it's status isn't still "Changes Planned", then don't overwrite its status or title.
Bug 1700967 Comment 0 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
(Note that this use case is not resolved by the `0.1.97` update)
Depending on the patch I'm making, sometimes I don't put any reviewers in my commit message, but rather I submit and add the reviewers on Phabricator. This is useful for two reasons:
* Herald will automatically add some reviewers that are necessary.
* I may not have the reviewer name memorized, so being able to search is helpful.
When `moz-phab` submits my patch, it sees that there are no reviewers on my revision, and it decides that this is a WIP patch. The downside of this is that it overwrites the state of the real Phabricator revision, which means:
* If the patch had reviewers attached and was accepted, then:
* It's moved back to "Changes Planned".
* A "WIP: " prefix is placed at the front.
I think that `moz-phab` should check the state of the revision on Phabricator. If it has has reviewers assigned and it's status isn't still "Changes Planned", then don't overwrite its status or title.