Le 28/11/2012 22:34, Katrin Fischer a écrit :
Hi all, Hi QAM,
We already agreed some time ago that the patch writer and the patch sign offer should not be from the same company/library/party. I would really like to extend that rule to also apply for patch writer and QA team member. For 3.12 we got a big QA team, which is great, because with all the ongoing work we are going to need it. And it also gives us more options and flexibility when it comes to these kinds of questions.
I would like to get your opinions on this, can we agree on this new rule?
Am I right if I say that BibLibre will be the company mostly concerned impacted by this rule ? Checking numbers. Some numbers: there are 131 patches waiting for signoff or QA. 52 are from BibLibre (40%) Displaying by "date of last change" (ie= there's been no activity on this bug since...) * August= 9 patches: 5 BibLibre, 1 OSSlab, 1 ByWater, 3 others * September = 8 patches: 4 BibLibre, 3 ByWater, 1 other * October = 27 patches: 14 BibLibre, 3 ACPL, 6 ByWater, 4 others (All of them are Enhancements or New Feature) At the end, my opinion is that it's a little bit unfair (and I restart a long-standing discussion/complain...) BibLibre does a huge of effort to submit all his development, and be quick when there is feedback. The very bad side effect of delays is that we loose a lot of energy in rebasing, just because there's no feedback from anyone, and when someone step-in the patch does not apply any more. We fully accept the rule for not self-signing the patch, because, functionally speaking, I agree that it's good to have an external eye. (and that's more important with large features) But the QA is a *technical* check of the code. If something is wrong (ie don't respect our guidelines, has a bad side effect, ...), as QAer, I'll do *exactly* the same thing whoever the patch come from. If I were suspicious, I could even say that you imply that, when Jonathan or me QA a patch from BibLibre, we're biased, and I could be upset by your suspicion (I'm not, I'm just very sad that this discussion started again, while I thought it was solved) I never "promote" BibLibre patches, I always QA by date of last change, ie: I QA the older patch without activity. Yesterday, I QAed something like 10 patches, iirc, 2 from BibLibre failed QA (including one just because there was some PODDOC missing !) Chris-es are proposing what could be a fair rule imo = "if no one step up". What could be considered as "no one step up" being the next question... -- Paul POULAIN - BibLibre http://www.biblibre.com Free & Open Source Softwares for libraries Koha, Drupal, Piwik, Jasper