Le 28/11/2012 22:34, Katrin Fischer a écrit : > Hi all, Hi QAM, > We already agreed some time ago that the patch writer and the patch sign > offer should not be from the same company/library/party. I would really > like to extend that rule to also apply for patch writer and QA team > member. For 3.12 we got a big QA team, which is great, because with all > the ongoing work we are going to need it. And it also gives us more > options and flexibility when it comes to these kinds of questions. > > I would like to get your opinions on this, can we agree on this new rule?
Am I right if I say that BibLibre will be the company mostly concerned impacted by this rule ? Checking numbers. Some numbers: there are 131 patches waiting for signoff or QA. 52 are from BibLibre (40%) Displaying by "date of last change" (ie= there's been no activity on this bug since...) * August= 9 patches: 5 BibLibre, 1 OSSlab, 1 ByWater, 3 others * September = 8 patches: 4 BibLibre, 3 ByWater, 1 other * October = 27 patches: 14 BibLibre, 3 ACPL, 6 ByWater, 4 others (All of them are Enhancements or New Feature) At the end, my opinion is that it's a little bit unfair (and I restart a long-standing discussion/complain...) BibLibre does a huge of effort to submit all his development, and be quick when there is feedback. The very bad side effect of delays is that we loose a lot of energy in rebasing, just because there's no feedback from anyone, and when someone step-in the patch does not apply any more. We fully accept the rule for not self-signing the patch, because, functionally speaking, I agree that it's good to have an external eye. (and that's more important with large features) But the QA is a *technical* check of the code. If something is wrong (ie don't respect our guidelines, has a bad side effect, ...), as QAer, I'll do *exactly* the same thing whoever the patch come from. If I were suspicious, I could even say that you imply that, when Jonathan or me QA a patch from BibLibre, we're biased, and I could be upset by your suspicion (I'm not, I'm just very sad that this discussion started again, while I thought it was solved) I never "promote" BibLibre patches, I always QA by date of last change, ie: I QA the older patch without activity. Yesterday, I QAed something like 10 patches, iirc, 2 from BibLibre failed QA (including one just because there was some PODDOC missing !) Chris-es are proposing what could be a fair rule imo = "if no one step up". What could be considered as "no one step up" being the next question... -- Paul POULAIN - BibLibre http://www.biblibre.com Free & Open Source Softwares for libraries Koha, Drupal, Piwik, Jasper _______________________________________________ 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/
