The developer is supposed to estimate the cost of the development including the QA process and the different steps of submission. A (good) developer must take care of most of the project's requirements and follow the guidelines. He will also provide tests for the change he made, write a valid and correct test plan, take care of side-effects, provide small patches, etc. The longer a developer will spend during the development step (before the first submission), the quicker the QA process will/should be :) Hope it makes sense, Jonathan PS: QA is not an exact science... On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 at 11:44 Cab Vinton <bibliwho@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart@bugs.koha-community.org> wrote:
I would not expect a QAer to be paid (by the sponsor of the enh) to review a patch, I'd call that more corruption / conflict of interest than sponsoring :)
Ah. Hadn't thought of it that way. Good point. Not sure there's an easy way around that one, even if the QAer is paid directly by the sponsor.
I suppose that's the nature of incentives -- they produce changes in behavior that wouldn't happen otherwise, a process that can be "innocent" or corrupt ...
Thanks,
Cab