On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Bob Birchall <bob@calyx.net.au> wrote:
How about this approach: - we designate a very small number of companies with the capacity and track record of major feature integration, as being authorised to short cut community QA before integrating major features (only); - minor features and bug fixes remain subject to the existing work flow; - I'm thinking ByWater, Biblibre and Catalyst at this stage - others can argue their own case; - such features must be integrated at least two months before a scheduled release, and assistance provided to community members to perform testing; - if significant problems are detected that are not rectified n weeks (2?) before release date, the feature will be withdrawn.
I don't like this (even if ByWater is included above). Who decides who's special? Why do we need someone to be 'special'? The rules should apply to everyone regardless of who they are. That's why it was so much fun for me to mark one of Chris's patches as failing QA :) ... using your model his patch would have made it in to Koha and wouldn't have done what it expected. Not to pick on Chris, but the point is that no one should be exempt and no one is flawless. On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org> wrote:
Part of becoming more "agile," if we must use that term, is to learn to keep our contributions manageable and feature-specific.
I agree with Owen. We need to make things manageable. Nicole