I am also of the mind the sign-off should be allowed by another employee of the same organization as the developer, provided they signer has no history of signing off on patches without testing. I do strongly also believe that QA must then be done by a disinterested party. Kyle On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Dobrica Pavlinusic <dpavlin@rot13.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:00:12AM +0200, Paul Poulain wrote:
Le 29/05/2012 09:50, Nicole Engard a écrit :
Just to add in my opinion here.
As someone who has been in Paul's situation, where a library (that has paid us to write them code) has been testing (and sometimes using the code in production) and has confirmed that things work I agree that putting a sign off in their name should be an okay practice. I also agree though that someone not from my company should QA the patch - that extra set of outside eyes is essential. Thanks Nicole, I'm "happy" to see BibLibre is not the only one facing this kind of problem.
I would just like to add that we are in same situation with EAN-13 barcode support[1]. They have running it in production, signing off patches is somewhat of high bar for them.
1: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
-- Dobrica Pavlinusic 2share!2flame dpavlin@rot13.org Unix addict. Internet consultant. http://www.rot13.org/~dpavlin _______________________________________________ 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/