Hi all (and particularly QAers)<br><br>I have 2 questions for the QA team.<br><br>1/ About bug 8687, a proposed patch (<a href="http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=12713&amp;action=diff">http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/attachment.cgi?id=12713&amp;action=diff</a>) removes perlcritic warnings. This way of doing is particularly brutal, it completely removes the code :)<br>
<br>So we have 2 solutions :<br>- To propose a patch to replace ALL<br>  eval { require &quot;$FindBin::Bin/../<a href="http://kohalib.pl">kohalib.pl</a>&quot; };<br>with<br>  my $lib = &quot;$FindBin::Bin/../<a href="http://kohalib.pl">kohalib.pl</a>&quot;<br>
  eval { require $lib};<br>in the misc scripts.<br>Like this, perlcritic is happy...<br><br>- 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.<br>
<br>2/ Recently I suggested a followup (to fix QA issues) for a bug (bug 7067) and I switched the status to &#39;passed qa&#39;. 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&#39;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.<br>
Maybe this point is a non-problem and will be fixed with new status :)<br><br>For discussion,<br><br>Jonathan<br>