> All QA members should already have been accessing the quality of
> patches at least to the same degree as those doing generic sign-offs and
> really to a greater degree. So as I say, the burden of '-s' is, indeed,
> trivial.

What is not-fun is that for string or really trivial changes, the QA is
also trivial, and applying/signing/attaching the patch is "costly".

Jared, would you be OK to discard this "QA need a signature" for this
kind of patch ? (reminder: now we have the patch complexity)

I'm not sure what the compelling argument for this would be. When you can QA a string change by sight off of bugzilla, you can use the following one-liner: `git-bz -s apply XXXX && git-bz attach -e HEAD`

Indeed, you could even create a git alias, something like: qastring = !sh -c 'git checkout -b stringy origin/master && git-bz -s apply $0 && git-bz attach -e HEAD $0 && git branch -D stringy'

That's what I'd do. Well, actually, I'd also have it run the template tests:

qastring = !sh -c 'git checkout -b stringy origin/master && git-bz -s apply $0 && prove xt/tt_valid.t xt/author/translatable-templates.t xt/author/valid-templates.t && git-bz attach -e HEAD $0 && git branch -D stringy'

Bingo! Look at a string patch, and if it looks good you run `git qastring XXXX` and as part of the upload you can add your QA comments and update the status. No more work than updating the bug manually, and probably less.

Regards,

Jared

--
Jared Camins-Esakov

Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC

(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445

(e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com

(web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/