Quick note: since one patch landed here and the bug wasn't marked as "leave-open", it got marked as RESOLVED/FIXED in 68. That means the part 2 patch hasn't landed. It's a good idea to use the "leave-open" keyword when we expect to be landing patches at different times, so bugs don't get closed in between. It's however sometimes a bit dangerous because it sometimes happen that we land 1 part, but never anything else, and the bug never gets marked as closed because of that. In this particular case, part 2 seems ready, so it might be ok to mark this bug as re-open and land the part 2. But I think it might be just as easy to file a new one just for the device editing capability, and move the patch there (as we do that, we should also make sure this new bug blocks bug rdm-ux and bug 1493094 as this one does). Micah: do you want to do that?
Bug 1487857 Comment 13 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Quick note: since one patch landed here and the bug wasn't marked as "leave-open", it got marked as RESOLVED/FIXED in 68. However part 2 patch hasn't landed. It's a good idea to use the "leave-open" keyword when we expect to be landing patches at different times, so bugs don't get closed in between. It's however sometimes a bit dangerous because it sometimes happen that we land 1 part, but never anything else, and the bug never gets marked as closed because of that. In this particular case, part 2 seems ready, so it might be ok to mark this bug as re-open and land the part 2. But I think it might be just as easy to file a new one just for the device editing capability, and move the patch there (as we do that, we should also make sure this new bug blocks bug rdm-ux and bug 1493094 as this one does). Micah: do you want to do that?