> > I can understand that Galen does not always have the time to examine each > patch when it enters PQA. But I would really like to see here more-or-less > FIFO (first in, first out). First out could of course mean Failed QA or > Discussion, but at least a change of state with some comments. The current > situation, leaving them in PQA for long without any visible activity, does > not motivate developers. (The FIFO rule would be fair also for the QA team, > and even for signing off (bug wranglers !).. ) A FIFO rule should perhaps > lower rebasing time too? When I joined the QA team, I did more or less > adhere to FIFO when QAing, but the current workflow made me leave that > approach.. If I have the idea that a patch set will probably go to sleep in > PQA (without obvious reasons for failing it), I will not start QA on it > either. > > I concur with the caveat that bugs should always trump enhancements! So the queue should be ordered by bug severity, and by age within those severity groups. For example, right now I see a bug fix that I submitted first at the end of last year, and the last iteration in June, that still needs signed off!
Kyle
_______________________________________________ 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/
