Le 21/05/2012 19:38, Chris Nighswonger a écrit : > http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow#Steps > > 1. I propose that we modify step 5 to read: > > "The patch is checked and signed-off by the QA team member. Then the bug > status is set to Passed QA" Something I made during the 3.8 release was to add many things to the coding guidelines. My preference goes to QA rules that are clearly defined and explained. That will help QAing a lot, and "anyone" with a good Koha experience, and some time to dedicate should/could do it.
I agree that we *must* have a functional AND a technical review of every patch, the 2 steps are different. > This will ensure that we have clarity that the patch was, indeed, > touched by a member of the QA team, as well as increasing the accuracy > of QA stats in git. Most QA is done in bugzilla only: when a patch is QAed, it's not signed-off & git bz attach most of the time. (that's also why your numbers below are meaningless : Ian has not made only 25 QA or joubu 5 ! OTOH, when I, as RM, push a patch, I always add my signature, that can be as RM or QA) > 2. I propose that the RM be the QA of last resort. At present the stats > show that the RM is doing the majority of the QA'ing. As I just wrote, I don't do the majority of QA, (even if I agree I do a lot) As I've said previously, as RM, I dedicate more than half of my time to this task. I think that we could have someone dedicated full time to QA and someone dedicated full time to sign-off. And until we won't... we will face this kind of trouble. Our workflow is good, but require a large effort we collectively fail to "pay" until now. [ off-topic: BibLibre dedicate a lot of resources to Koha (see statistics on chris_c blog. A lot being "self-sponsored") and can't dedicate more. I think everybody should ask himself seriously "What did I do for Koha last week, what will I do next week ?" ] > "Last resort" is a > condition evoked by all members of the current QA team acknowledging > that no one among them has the time, etc. to do QA on a particular patch > the RM feels needs to be pushed OR by a bug remaining in the "Signed > Off" status beyond a fixed time period of four weeks. +1 (and it's already done that way in fact : as member of the QA team, I always order by date when I QA, and start by the oldest patches. I've suggested to change the default order to date, but the idea has not been approved) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08 _______________________________________________ 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/
