On Jul 5, 2012 12:25 AM, "Marcel de Rooy" <M.de.Rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote:
Hi Paul, all
Seeing if it can break something requires a lot of experience with Koha
code source. When I QA code from BibLibre, I'm not biaised because it comes from BibLibre.
Are you sure? Just looking at your statement from outside BibLibre, I would say that there could be conflicting interests here.. (With all due respect !)
Should we, then, give a grant to some specific, experienced & trustable
Neutral is always to be preferred imho. ppl to QA ?
Isn't that already the case? Or do you feel that we should extend the QA team? If we dissolve it on the other hand and grant a new QA privilege to say 15 developers, it may just be a little too optional/non-committal. Would that really be more productive?
I thought it was already the case too, and that's what we had nominations and elections for. I'd hate to replace that system with a cartel like appointed system. Chris
For example, the eclipse foundation has "contributors" and "committers". From first glance, I suspect that we compare two non-similar workflows.
Marcel _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/