[Koha-bugs] [Bug 7167] updatedatabase improvements

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7167

--- Comment #44 from Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger at foundations.edu> 2012-01-06 14:19:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Chris N,
> 
> QA is not strictly assessing the validity of the code and it's conformity to
> our established coding guidelines.  It also takes into consideration larger
> implications of the code being submitted, the possibilities of regressions and
> the risks of introducing new bugs.  Perhaps I'm overstating the scope as others
> understand it, but this is my understanding.

I don't think that this is an overstatement of QA responsibilities. I just
think that QA rejection should include concrete, demonstration issues. ie. What
are the exact regressions/bugs along with examples of exactly how those will
manifest. If the code is demonstrably buggy or regression-causing, it should
fail QA. It should not fail QA on issues which are anticipated/suspected, but
no confirmed IMHO.

> 
> That said, having another status to mark this other than "Failed QA" would be
> good, because the code itself isn't technically invalid.  Perhaps "Planning" or
> "In Discussion"... ?

Such a choice would be nice. "In Discussion" would be an unambiguous tag.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.