On 28 January 2011 07:21, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
This is a separate problem, lets call it, how do we deal with work that has been submitted that doesn't follow the workflow, and work on a solution for that. Paul himself said that for patches that do follow the workflow (the image patch Nicole tested and signed off) the workflow works. So lets not change that, lets work out how to deal with patches that have been submitted that dont follow the workflow, ie, step 1, one branch per feature.
It's not an easy problem but it is one we are all motivated to solve. No one. least of all me, wants to see anyones work go to waster. I want Biblibre's code in master before 3.4, lets try to work out how we can do it. All the while keeping vigilant and making sure all work follows the one branch per feature/bug rule for the future. Combine that with a better way of testing, and someone championing that, I think we are looking good for the future.
This is the heart of the problem as I see it. The current workflow is fine (and could be embellished with Ian's suggestions/proposal.) The issue of the outstanding Biblibre code is a "left-over" problem which we need to setup up to, fix, and get behind us as soon as possible.
Perhaps we should schedule a "Test Fest" similar to a "Hack Fest" and get a group of people together to pound on the Biblibre test servers one day?
I could commit to a couple of hours for that, and I think I could get a few other catalyst employees too. Chris