a suggestion for signing-off patches?
hi All when signing off patches, could we agree to make it compulsory for people to add a quick comment to either the bug ticket, (or to the patch itself)? it just needs to be a few words, like 'works great!', or 'tested ok', etc... what do people think? http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Sign_off_on_patches#Sign-off
Hi, On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com> wrote:
when signing off patches, could we agree to make it compulsory for people to add a quick comment to either the bug ticket, (or to the patch itself)?
it just needs to be a few words, like 'works great!', or 'tested ok', etc...
what do people think?
The act of signing off should _already_ have the meaning and expectation that the person signing off on it has tested it. If somebody has signed off on a patch, there isn't necessarily anything more to communicate that the Bugzilla status change and Signed-off-by line in the patch don't already signal. Why make an additional comment compulsory? What specific problem would this solve? 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
Le 03/05/2013 19:01, Galen Charlton a écrit :
Why make an additional comment compulsory? What specific problem would this solve? I agree with this question, and will add that sandboxes would have to be modified (not a huge deal I think)
-- Paul POULAIN - BibLibre http://www.biblibre.com Free & Open Source Softwares for libraries Koha, Drupal, Piwik, Jasper
On 2013-05-4, at 5:01 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com> wrote:
when signing off patches, could we agree to make it compulsory for people to add a quick comment to either the bug ticket, (or to the patch itself)?
it just needs to be a few words, like 'works great!', or 'tested ok', etc...
what do people think?
The act of signing off should _already_ have the meaning and expectation that the person signing off on it has tested it. If somebody has signed off on a patch, there isn't necessarily anything more to communicate that the Bugzilla status change and Signed-off-by line in the patch don't already signal.
Why make an additional comment compulsory? What specific problem would this solve?
hmm, its just a reassurance/confirmation thing really... i find it reassuring when QA-ing a bug, to have someone say explicitly that they have tested that patch considering how quick it is to make a sign-off comment, i think its worth the extra effort (just my opinion) thats the only real reason :) it also reduces the possibility that people might accidentally sign-off a patch, *without* testing that patch
Hi, On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com> wrote:
i find it reassuring when QA-ing a bug, to have someone say explicitly that they have tested that patch considering how quick it is to make a sign-off comment, i think its worth the extra effort (just my opinion)
thats the only real reason :)
I am not unsympathetic about wanting additional reassurance that folks who sign off patches are doing so mindfully, but adding a comment requirement doesn't provide any more information to the QA team than the signoff itself does, nor does it offer any additional guarantee that the signer-off did so properly.
it also reduces the possibility that people might accidentally sign-off a patch, *without* testing that patch
It is indeed easy to accidentally let a Signed-off-by line slip into a patch. But I don't think it is easy to accidentally sign off on a patch: the difference is that one has to take an active step (via git-bz or other means) to post your signoff. 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
On 2013-05-4, at 8:30 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Mason James <mtj@kohaaloha.com> wrote:
i find it reassuring when QA-ing a bug, to have someone say explicitly that they have tested that patch considering how quick it is to make a sign-off comment, i think its worth the extra effort (just my opinion)
thats the only real reason :)
I am not unsympathetic about wanting additional reassurance that folks who sign off patches are doing so mindfully, but adding a comment requirement doesn't provide any more information to the QA team than the signoff itself does, nor does it offer any additional guarantee that the signer-off did so properly.
it also reduces the possibility that people might accidentally sign-off a patch, *without* testing that patch
It is indeed easy to accidentally let a Signed-off-by line slip into a patch. But I don't think it is easy to accidentally sign off on a patch: the difference is that one has to take an active step (via git-bz or other means) to post your signoff.
Regards,
Galen
oops, sorry about the late reply i think what i am really trying to say is... when signing-off a complex or risky patch, please consider adding a some sign-off comment every time you this, you make a kitten smile :)
participants (3)
-
Galen Charlton -
Mason James -
Paul Poulain