Le 21/05/2012 19:38, Chris Nighswonger a écrit :
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow#Steps
1. I propose that we modify step 5 to read:
"The patch is checked and signed-off by the QA team member. Then the bug status is set to Passed QA" Something I made during the 3.8 release was to add many things to the coding guidelines. My preference goes to QA rules that are clearly defined and explained. That will help QAing a lot, and "anyone" with a good Koha experience, and some time to dedicate should/could do it.
I agree that we *must* have a functional AND a technical review of every patch, the 2 steps are different.
This will ensure that we have clarity that the patch was, indeed, touched by a member of the QA team, as well as increasing the accuracy of QA stats in git. Most QA is done in bugzilla only: when a patch is QAed, it's not signed-off & git bz attach most of the time. (that's also why your numbers below are meaningless : Ian has not made only 25 QA or joubu 5 ! OTOH, when I, as RM, push a patch, I always add my signature, that can be as RM or QA)
2. I propose that the RM be the QA of last resort. At present the stats show that the RM is doing the majority of the QA'ing. As I just wrote, I don't do the majority of QA, (even if I agree I do a lot)
As I've said previously, as RM, I dedicate more than half of my time to this task. I think that we could have someone dedicated full time to QA and someone dedicated full time to sign-off. And until we won't... we will face this kind of trouble. Our workflow is good, but require a large effort we collectively fail to "pay" until now. [ off-topic: BibLibre dedicate a lot of resources to Koha (see statistics on chris_c blog. A lot being "self-sponsored") and can't dedicate more. I think everybody should ask himself seriously "What did I do for Koha last week, what will I do next week ?" ]
"Last resort" is a condition evoked by all members of the current QA team acknowledging that no one among them has the time, etc. to do QA on a particular patch the RM feels needs to be pushed OR by a bug remaining in the "Signed Off" status beyond a fixed time period of four weeks. +1 (and it's already done that way in fact : as member of the QA team, I always order by date when I QA, and start by the oldest patches. I've suggested to change the default order to date, but the idea has not been approved)
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08