On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Paul Poulain <[email protected]>wrote:
> Le 22/02/2011 12:46, Chris Nighswonger a écrit : > > Chris can correct me if I'm wrong.... > > > > Once the patch has been pushed to a QA branch it is "Pushed for QA." > > > > If it fails QA it should be "Failed QA." > > > > If it passes it should be "Needs sign off" or "Signed off." > > > > Once pushed to master it is "Patch Pushed." > > > > If at any time it fails a test the status should return to "Failed QA." > That's how I read it too, but when "patch pushed", there's something in > master and something that is wrong. So it should not just be "failed QA" > because in this status a patch can be hidden in a middle of many other > "failed QA" that have no consequences in master. > > the more I think of it the more I suspect it would be a good idea to > have a new status. > > I understand what you are thinking now. I think if we just followed the use of the status and resolution fields (see http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status) then in the case you suggest we would just re-open the bug. I wonder if we are not creating solutions for a problem which is really due to a lack of utilizing solutions which already exist? 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/
