From my point of view, the reason we elected the six people we did for the QA team is that we know that those six people understand the big picture of Koha better than other developers, and would be able to identify places where regressions are likely. Code quality is important, but less important than the end user experience, which would be much more marred by the presence of a regression than the presence of a backtick. So it is my expectation that when QAing patches our QA team is doing at least some testing (for the most part I believe this has been done throughout the 3.12 cycle; Marcel, an example of what I'm looking for can be found on http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8206 where you spotted a number of problems in the course of QA). So I don't see that this requirement adds a significant burden on the QA team. After all, you're already applying the patch. On the other hand, the presence of the Signed-off-by line from the QA team *greatly* reduces the burden on me, and since I have had to push 114 patches (plus merges) *by myself* since October 30 (and reviewed a fair number more), I think the tradeoff is worth it. As an example of what I'm talking about, there was one bug where the author repeatedly marked it "Passed QA" himself, without anyone else looking at the code or testing it. In order to figure out what happened, I had to wade through 67 comments on the bug and several pages worth of history, just to find that no, I hadn't missed the QA team's approval, in fact the patches never passed QA. There can be no question that I am the bottleneck for code getting into Koha, and the day that bug wasted was taken from my review of bug 7067, which probably would have applied had I been able to use that time to review it.

Regards,

Jared