On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote:

On 13 May 2011 03:42, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
> Le 12/05/2011 17:26, Chris Nighswonger a écrit :
>> We are currently accepting patches into QA which are signed off by employees
>> of the same company as the author of the patch.
>>
>> So I'm a bit confused as to why Biblibre cannot adopt a similar procedure in
>> order to get their patches into QA?
> I'm not only speaking of patches fixing a bug, but also of large updates
> adding a feature. Chris has said he wouldn't accept such a patch/branch
> self-signed.

That's exactly right, but luckily for 3.6 we have another step, the QA manager.
So self signed would be enough, (preferably one external one as well)
to get it to the QA manager. If it then passes QA, its on to me as
RM.

Following up on this, for work developed and internally signed off by ByWater Solutions, I'm going to mark smaller things that pass QA as such. But, for larger developments, I'm going to need someone's eyes from outside my company to check the code and give a signoff. If my judgement of what's "small" and what's "large" ever seems suspect to anyone, PLEASE call shenanigans on me, and I'll address it.

-Ian