Am 28.05.12 17:19, schrieb Fischer, Katrin: > Hi Paul and all, > > I agree with Chris N. here. Every exception we make, makes it harder to > explain and stick to our rules. > I tinkk every patch should at least have 2 parties involved.
But, if the patch we speak about, has been tested at the library, that makes it already two involved parties, I would say. Or am I missing sth here? - Marc > > Katrin > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [email protected] im Auftrag von Chris > Nighswonger > Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 17:03 > An: Paul Poulain > Cc: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [Koha-devel] Signing-off a patch for a customer > > Hi Paul, > > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Paul Poulain > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello koha-devel, >> >> I just pushed a follow-up for bug 6858. If you look at the patch, you'll >> see that the author is from BibLibre, as well as the sign-offer. But if >> you look more carefully on the patch comments, you may understand that >> Stephane Delaye has signed-off "in the name of the library". We're >> facing here a case where the library don't want/can't sign-off their >> patch (they don't know how to do it and don't want to bother with doing >> it. They just said this patch worked for them) >> >> At BibLibre, we have 3 project managers: Stéphane Delaye / Gaetan >> Boisson / François Charbonnier. They are librarians and are doing the >> glue between the library our customer and our developers. >> they know how to sign-off a patch. >> >> I want, in this mail, request that those 3 ppl from BibLibre (and only >> them) can be sign-offers for patches written by another BibLibre >> developer, once the library has confirmed it works. >> >> I propose that we define a standard message, something like >> Signed-off-by: Delaye Stephane <[email protected]> >> patch validated by <LIBRARY NAME>, signed-off in their name >> >> Can I have your agreement with this idea ? >> (of course, in case another support provider has the same kind of >> situation, this would also be applicable. It's not something I want for >> BibLibre only) > > > A look over the history of that bug seems to indicate that Biblibre has > been responsible for: > > 1. Creation of the code > 2. Sign-off of the code > 3. QA of the code > > I am not comfortable with this situation. It is not particularly a > "Biblibre" thing with me, but a matter of principle. And it is occurring > with greater frequency. > > I believe we need to stick with the principles we agreed to. This patch > clearly missed the "approval" of a dis-interested party in its initial > commit to master. (Perhaps Katrin mentioned this at some point, but I'm not > sure.) We need to take up the slack here and get a disinterested QA on this > followup prior to pushing it to master. > > I am of the strong opinion that going forward we need to maintain a more > strict compliance with this principle of dis-interested sign-off/QA. > Clearly at times one or the other may be impractical, however, one *or* the > other is always possible. Perhaps it may not fit the desired schedule of > the vendor, but violation of this principle is the first step down a > slippery slope. > > 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/
