Le 29/05/2012 13:50, Marcel de Rooy a écrit : > I agree with most responses in this thread: If a company makes a patch, a > customer of that company signs off, > it should not be QAed by that company, but by a "neutral" party. > The QAer should even be allowed to ask for a second outside signoff if he feels the patch needs that additional proof.
What's the QA done for ? it's looking at the quality of the code. So, a QAer can request a 2nd signoff, but only if he feel that the code is missing a case (like "I feel this code will work for UNIMARC, could someone check for MARC21" ? or "work for sysprefX = OFF, must be checked for sysprefX = ON as well". I feel that should be an uncommon case. The RM has a more global responsibility to ensure the global consistency of the soft. > As Paul mentioned earlier (he does QA but does not set the status): > In order to prevent the appearance of pushing the process, > you could even ask if it would be wiser to refrain from such QA comments. (Or just mail them to the author.) I'm not sure I understand ? Do you mean I should not QA if I can't set the status ? Sound a very bad idea : if I see something wrong, like an unconditionnal warn, a missing use Modern::Perl, it must be said publicly, to avoid having another QAer requesting this problem to be fixed Reminder (or information in case you don't know) = I usually QA & push patches ordered by last modification date, ASC (So the oldest 1st). If I see something wrong while I'm reviewing, I don't understand why I should stay silent ! HTH -- 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/
