On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Paul Poulain
<paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
Le 31/03/2011 09:31, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
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