I'd be ok testing Jonathan's suggestion of moving to Passed QA directly for for bugs with'string change' or 'trivial' complexity. QA and RM could still reset to 'Needs signoff' for a second opinion when they feel it's needed. I think the patch complexity can only be set after developing a patch - so making it mandatory might not work as a technical solution here. Maybe we can encourage the use of the field a bit more? Currently for most of the patches in the 'Needs Sign-off' queue the patch complexity is not set - so it's hard to tell how many patches this change would affect. Katrin Am 25.08.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Fridolin SOMERS:
+1
On those 200, how many have a severity of trivial or lower ?
Le 20/08/2015 15:51, Jonathan Druart a écrit :
Hello devs,
I would like to suggest a simplification of the integration workflow for some patches. Indeed the signoff queue is back to a critical threshold (200) and the signoffer's activity is very low.
Being part of the QA team, I try not to test patches in the Needs Signoff queue as I loose my QA token. The active members of the QA team are very limited and when we do SO, this increase the QA queue. As a result there is less chances my patches are QAed as there are more and more patches in the QA queue. It's a bit egoistic, but we all have the same problem.
So I suggest that for some patches, the ones with a minor severity, small or template changes could, IMO, bypass the signoff step.
I would like to discuss this during the next dev meetings, but I am keen to get some feedbacks on this idea.
Cheers, Jonathan
PS: If I am correct, we already have discussed about that previously. _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/