On 28 January 2011 07:21, Chris Nighswonger <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? > I could commit to a couple of hours for that, and I think I could get a few other catalyst employees too.
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/
