On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Chris Cormack <[email protected]>wrote:
<snip> > This is a separate problem, lets call it, how do we deal with work > that has been submitted that doesn't follow the workflow, and work on > a solution for that. > Paul himself said that for patches that do follow the workflow (the > image patch Nicole tested and signed off) the workflow works. So lets > not change that, lets work out how to deal with patches that have been > submitted that dont follow the workflow, ie, step 1, one branch per > feature. > > It's not an easy problem but it is one we are all motivated to solve. > No one. least of all me, wants to see anyones work go to waster. I > want Biblibre's code in master before 3.4, lets try to work out how we > can do it. All the while keeping vigilant and making sure all work > follows the one branch per feature/bug rule for the future. Combine > that with a better way of testing, and someone championing that, I > think we are looking good for the future. > > This is the heart of the problem as I see it. The current workflow is fine (and could be embellished with Ian's suggestions/proposal.) The issue of the outstanding Biblibre code is a "left-over" problem which we need to setup up to, fix, and get behind us as soon as possible. Perhaps we should schedule a "Test Fest" similar to a "Hack Fest" and get a group of people together to pound on the Biblibre test servers one day? Kind Regards, Chris
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
