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