Le 12/03/2012 23:12, Srdjan a écrit :
I'd like to discuss the mechanics of it. Let's say we split our change into 4 smaller changes, and have a following situation: 2 depends on 1 3 and 4 depend on 2
My 2cts: * you must use dependencies on bugzilla so clearly state that one block/depend on another * we (BibLibre) face this problem for acquisition and serials improvements we are rebasing/submitting now. There are some things that we don't submit until other things have made their way into Koha. If the patch workflow goes smoothly, then I think it's a mechanics that can work. However, we don't have, yet, a priority on signing-off a patch. It means that a patch that is trivial to test is usually tested faster than a patch that introduces a feature and requires a large testing. Should we adopt a rule for the order of sign-off ? I'm not sure at all. But I think we should find a way to encourage people to test/sign-off things. All in one, it's a tricky problem. I agree it adds some overhead on the work required to submit an enhancement. Everybody must be aware of that. If you look at this mailing list history (or speak with Chris_c, as we had some strong discussions about that), you'll see I made some suggestions to change the current workflow, to have things pushed faster, to reduce the overhead. Others where afraid of introducing instability, so my ideas where rejected. I still think the overhead is something we should try to reduce, but still haven't be successful in proposing a technical way that is acceptable for our community. If you can find a technical solution to reduce overhead without reducing stability, I'll be the happiest man here probably ;-) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08