Le 31/08/2015 07:41, Katrin Fischer a écrit :
I think the patch complexity can only be set after developing a patch -
so making it mandatory might not work as a technical solution here.
Maybe we can encourage the use of the field a bit more?
Maybe we could have a specific status "TBD" (to be
String changes can be calculated algorithmically. I suspect that the other
complexities are largely a function of lines of code, number of files
touched, and number of dependencies... but I'm sure that there other
factors. The smaller the patch, the more likely that the complexity could
be
+1 for Jonathan's proposition
Marc
Am 31.08.2015 um 07:41 schrieb Katrin Fischer:
> I'd be ok testing Jonathan's suggestion of moving to Passed QA directly
> for for bugs with'string change' or 'trivial' complexity.
> QA and RM could still reset to 'Needs signoff' for a second opinion when
>
. August 2015 um 13:09 Uhr
Von: "Barton Chittenden" <bar...@bywatersolutions.com>
An: "Katrin Fischer" <katrin.fischer...@web.de>
Cc: Koha-devel <koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org>
Betreff: Re: [Koha-devel] Facilitate integration of some patches
String change
I'd be ok testing Jonathan's suggestion of moving to Passed QA directly
for for bugs with'string change' or 'trivial' complexity.
QA and RM could still reset to 'Needs signoff' for a second opinion when
they feel it's needed.
I think the patch complexity can only be set after developing a patch -
I'd say it should be evaluated on a per-bug/patch basis. Overall I agree,
but let the QAM and the RM have the final word about the bugs qualifying
for this proposed fast-track treatment.
I will add this to tomorrow's agenda for formally talking about this.
2015-08-20 12:44 GMT-03:00 Jonathan
+1
On those 200, how many have a severity of trivial or lower ?
Le 20/08/2015 15:51, Jonathan Druart a écrit :
Hello devs,
I would like to suggest a simplification of the integration workflow
for some patches.
Indeed the signoff queue is back to a critical threshold (200) and the
signoffer's
So I suggest that for some patches, the ones with a minor severity,
small or template changes could, IMO, bypass the signoff step.
This idea comes up every now and then (just as we see our queues growing and
slinking again..).
I would suggest to make the Complexity field mandatory. Some people
Hello devs,
I would like to suggest a simplification of the integration workflow
for some patches.
Indeed the signoff queue is back to a critical threshold (200) and the
signoffer's activity is very low.
Being part of the QA team, I try not to test patches in the Needs
Signoff queue as I loose
I should have added that I can engage my own responsibility and will
provide a fix as quickly as possible if the patch introduced a
regression or was buggy.
2015-08-20 15:03 GMT+01:00 Marcel de Rooy m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl:
So I suggest that for some patches, the ones with a minor severity,
I can totally agree with this bit I would suggest it's best for the qa'er
to be the final determiner of complexity.
Kyle
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
On Aug 20, 2015 10:03 AM, Marcel de Rooy m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl wrote:
So I suggest that for some patches, the ones with a
11 matches
Mail list logo
