Speaking for ByWater on the below mentioned practice: We do the internal sign-offs as a way to spot-check our work going out to the community. We do not mean for this to serve as "the signoff" for any of our work. We just want to be sure what we produce is of the highest quality we can muster BEFORE it goes out. Signoffs from other parties are encouraged and desired. If this seems like an inefficient or counterproductive practice to anyone, please let us know. The end goal is, as always, to make Koha the best it can be, and we're flexible on how we go about doing that if there's good reason to modify our process. Thank you all, and let's keep the patches rolling! -Ian On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com>wrote:
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow: Great! I made a few small adjustments, hopefully improvements:
Patch signer should not be patch writer. Preferably, patch writer and
Le 31/03/2011 09:31, Marcel de Rooy a écrit : patch signer should not be from the same company or institution. Preferably, you're right. And I think it's the RM that must decide wether a sign-off is OK or no. Some patches are obviously simple and one sign-off is enough. And some patches are big, important, with structural consequences. In this case, even one sign-off may not be enough. So, the RM may include a signed-off-by-the-same-company patch without problem (many patches from bywatersolutions are going this way those days), and sometimes he may have put back the patch status to "pls sign-off", asking for another sign-off, even if he had already one from a different company.
Bug closer should not be patch writer. Preferably, bug closer should not be patch signer too. I've already expressed my feeling here: for us (BibLibre), the patch writer is not the real reporter: the reporter is a librarian, that reported the bug on our support platform. And when we submit a patch, it means we've tested and applied it on the library server. So when we mark "resolved", it's because the library reported it was OK [1]. So I think self-marking fixed is OK.
[1] well, to speak frankly: we ask libraries to close bugs on our -french speaking- support platform, but none of them does. But when we mark a bug fixed, if it is not, they never forget to reopen it ;-)
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal