Redmine/6509

It still makes some sense; but it made more sense before, what with the "repaired" in the code that's now gone.
If the promise wasn't kept, we previously didn't set "repaired" (so the condition was met) but I suppose the promise result is "not kept", not "no-op", so I guess we skip this code, which previously was run.  The comment still seems to believe that "not kept" (an example of not repaired) applies.
But I'm profoundly unfamiliar with this code, so have no clue how many other layers of confusion I'm missing - after all, the cfPS call doesn't seem to be setting a "promise kept" class at all ...