http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7167 --- Comment #44 from Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@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.