MJ, Jared suggested: > > [...] I propose adding the following to patches which were > > sponsored by a particular library: > > Sponsored-by: The Library > > I don't think this works for us. Some libraries will not wish to be > associated publicly with features before their buyer/commissioner has > approved them, especially private libraries. >
This is true of many of my clients as well. This line would not be required for any given patch, it merely offers a way for libraries who want credit to ensure that they receive it. So should we hold back work until sponsor approval (and we've been > burned that way before, with a delay meaning work is stale and needs > rebasing before it reaches the community, then there is no funding > left to do that and it falls on the floor and kittens die) or would > you accept follow-up patches that only add Sponsored-by lines with a > fast-track through QA and RM? > The Sponsored-by lines serve only for record keeping, so I see no reason why the RM could not add a record-keeping patch with the Sponsored-by line at the request of the developer (similar to the way I added a bunch of Sponsored-by lines in a patch to 3.6.x). Regards, Jared -- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) [email protected] (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
_______________________________________________ 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/
