Hi all (and particularly QAers) I have 2 questions for the QA team. 1/ About bug 8687, a proposed patch ( http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=12713&action=diff) removes perlcritic warnings. This way of doing is particularly brutal, it completely removes the code :) So we have 2 solutions : - To propose a patch to replace ALL eval { require "$FindBin::Bin/../kohalib.pl" }; with my $lib = "$FindBin::Bin/../kohalib.pl" eval { require $lib}; in the misc scripts. Like this, perlcritic is happy... - We add a prerequisite for the misc scripts : the PERL5LIB environment variable has to be set with the koha path and we delete these lines. 2/ Recently I suggested a followup (to fix QA issues) for a bug (bug 7067) and I switched the status to 'passed qa'. I thought it was easier to let the RM review a simple patch instead of asking for a new sign off and another QA. I understand that we don't want to have patches without review and test. But in this case (and in most cases when I suggest a new patch while passing QA) it is a simple patch and starting again a new iteration (SO + QA) burn off energy and/or could block a patch for several weeks in this status. Maybe this point is a non-problem and will be fixed with new status :) For discussion, Jonathan