I am also of the mind the sign-off should be allowed by another employee of the same organization as the developer, provided they signer has no history of signing off on patches without testing. I do strongly also believe that QA must then be done by a disinterested party.
Kyle On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Dobrica Pavlinusic <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:00:12AM +0200, Paul Poulain wrote: >> Le 29/05/2012 09:50, Nicole Engard a écrit : >> > Just to add in my opinion here. >> > >> > As someone who has been in Paul's situation, where a library (that has >> > paid us to write them code) has been testing (and sometimes using the >> > code in production) and has confirmed that things work I agree that >> > putting a sign off in their name should be an okay practice. I also >> > agree though that someone not from my company should QA the patch - >> > that extra set of outside eyes is essential. >> Thanks Nicole, >> I'm "happy" to see BibLibre is not the only one facing this kind of problem. > > I would just like to add that we are in same situation with EAN-13 > barcode support[1]. They have running it in production, signing off > patches is somewhat of high bar for them. > > 1: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6448 > > -- > Dobrica Pavlinusic 2share!2flame [email protected] > Unix addict. Internet consultant. http://www.rot13.org/~dpavlin > _______________________________________________ > 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/
