Hi Galen, Saw this note from Paul on bug 7167. Probably, your answer may be of interest to more people. We can all see 40 patches in that queue, but we do not know your strategy in handling them (apart from the fact that it is different from that of former RMs). But I could have missed something :) Thanks! Marcel ________________________________________ Van: bugzilla-daemon@bugs.koha-community.org [bugzilla-daemon@bugs.koha-community.org] Verzonden: dinsdag 2 juli 2013 11:48 Aan: Marcel de Rooy Onderwerp: [Bug 7167] updatedatabase improvements http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7167 --- Comment #244 from Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> --- Galen, did you forget this patch ? Any other comment ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Hi, On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy@rijksmuseum.nl>wrote:
Saw this note from Paul on bug 7167. Probably, your answer may be of interest to more people. We can all see 40 patches in that queue, but we do not know your strategy in handling them (apart from the fact that it is different from that of former RMs). But I could have missed something :)
It's quite simple -- I do not consider my job as being one of automatically pushing any patch that reaches the passed-QA status. I will take the time I need to review and test nearly [1] every patch, and in particular any like bug 7167 that proposes a significant change. Bigger patches take more time, especially those that have architectural implications. The revamp of the schema update mechanism proposed in bug 7167 has been under discussion for a long time, and is not IMO one that should be automatically pushed, especially given that it's been quite a while since patches have been rejected simply because of merge conflicts with updatedatabase.pl. Further, I *do* view my job to include responsibility for final review of architectural changes to Koha. A patch that adds a necessary improvement to Koha but whose implementation is lacking or would present long-term maintenance issues is going to receive enhanced scrutiny from me. There are other major architectural patches, most recently and most notably DBIx::Class support, that I have been focusing my effort on; bug 7167 in my estimation is not at the same level of priority. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org
Hi, On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Galen Charlton <gmc@esilibrary.com> wrote:
It's quite simple -- I do not consider my job as being one of automatically pushing any patch that reaches the passed-QA status. I will take the time I need to review and test nearly [1] every patch...
As somebody pointed out, I left the footnote off: [1] Some string patches I just eyeball. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: gmc@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org
* Galen Charlton (gmc@esilibrary.com) wrote:
Hi, On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote:
Saw this note from Paul on bug 7167. Probably, your answer may be of interest to more people. We can all see 40 patches in that queue, but we do not know your strategy in handling them (apart from the fact that it is different from that of former RMs). But I could have missed something :)
It's quite simple -- I do not consider my job as being one of automatically pushing any patch that reaches the passed-QA status. I will take the time I need to review and test nearly [1] every patch, and in particular any like bug 7167 that proposes a significant change.
Which isn't really that different from the previous RM, or speaking for myself, when I did RM or RMaint. I, for one, welcome the scrutiny. We are all human (at least I'm pretty sure we all are) and we make mistakes. Galen has caught at least one thing I missed when QAing. Stability FTW :) Chris -- Chris Cormack Catalyst IT Ltd. +64 4 803 2238 PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
Am 02.07.2013 21:30, schrieb Chris Cormack:
* Galen Charlton (gmc@esilibrary.com) wrote:
Hi, On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote:
Saw this note from Paul on bug 7167. Probably, your answer may be of interest to more people. We can all see 40 patches in that queue, but we do not know your strategy in handling them (apart from the fact that it is different from that of former RMs). But I could have missed something :)
It's quite simple -- I do not consider my job as being one of automatically pushing any patch that reaches the passed-QA status. I will take the time I need to review and test nearly [1] every patch, and in particular any like bug 7167 that proposes a significant change.
Which isn't really that different from the previous RM, or speaking for myself, when I did RM or RMaint. I, for one, welcome the scrutiny. We are all human (at least I'm pretty sure we all are) and we make mistakes. Galen has caught at least one thing I missed when QAing.
Stability FTW :)
Chris
And he has also found something I missed - scrutiny and stability FTW :) I think Galen is doing a wonderful job as RM and I wouldn't want him to do it any different. Katrin
Probably, we can close this thread now.
It's quite simple -- I do not consider my job as being one of automatically pushing any patch that reaches the passed-QA status. I will take the time I need to review and test nearly [1] every patch, and in particular any like bug 7167 that proposes a significant change. No RM should push automatically. Please take your time. I agree with your last comment on 7167 btw.
Which isn't really that different from the previous RM, or speaking for myself, when I did RM or RMaint. I, for one, welcome the scrutiny. We are all human (at least I'm pretty sure we all are) and we make mistakes. Galen has caught at least one thing I missed when QAing. I welcome the scrutiny as well and hope to have acted accordingly during my QA work so far too. Note that this was certainly not the point of this thread.
I think Galen is doing a wonderful job as RM and I wouldn't want him to do it any different. The intention of my message was more to ask what was happening behind the scenes.. (There appears to be no hidden branch where Galen does special git trics, or he just does not want to tell about it :) So, Galen, please go on: if Quality>Quantity then Stability++;
Regards, Marcel
participants (4)
-
Chris Cormack -
Galen Charlton -
Katrin Fischer -
Marcel de Rooy