On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Paul Poulain <[email protected]>wrote:
> > light of that, I think two months would be reasonable. > > In > 2 months ? That's really a long period, considering we've a 6 months > release cycle, with Feature & String Freeze. That let only a short time > for New Features and Enhancements > I was thinking of 2 ... weeks. Let's cut the fruit in two (frenchism ?) > and say one month ? > > +1 for one month. Large change sets become hard to rebase quickly. > > Also, it's worth pointing out that we have a QA *team*. If there's a > > BibLibre patch that's been signed off that isn't getting QAed, it is > > absolutely reasonable for you to e-mail the koha-devel list a message > > something like: "[QA] Does anyone have time to review poor benighted bug > > XXXX?" > By default (at least for me), the "signed off" list is organised by > date. I've the assignee & changed column in the result list, it's > trivial to see who did what, and when it has been signed-off. > Here again, I would propose some sort of QA guideline which requires the oldest, highest severity, signed-off patchs to be QA'd first. This would seem to lay to rest the entire issue of patches becoming poor and/or benighted. :-) 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/
