I would not recommend adding another status (and another queue to watch). We have Patch does not apply, In discussion, Failed QA, Blocked. And now we would add Failed Signoff. Why does it fail signoff? In most cases I think it would probably be: In discussion. Failed QA could be too; we should not think in terms of *harsh* about it. If someone does not want to signoff on a patch, it would be friendly to add a comment to tell why and change the status accordingly. ________________________________________ Van: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] namens Katrin Fischer [Katrin.Fischer.83@web.de] Verzonden: woensdag 4 maart 2015 14:08 Aan: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Onderwerp: Re: [Koha-devel] Another bug status Hi Nicole, I think I like the idea - it seems logical. It failed the first step - the sign-off, so it's 'Failed sign-off'. Also a bit less harsh than failing QA :) Katrin Am 04.03.2015 um 13:39 schrieb Nicole Engard:

Hi all,

I'm at the hackfest right now and have found an interesting problem with our statuses. I find a lot of bugs that are in a status of needs signoff but have conversations going on after the patch has been submitted. I feel like we need another status in here. Kyle suggested something like 'failed signoff' which isn't quite 'failed qa' but it does mean something has to be done to the patch before it needs signoff. I'm not picky - but I've found a lot of these such bugs this week and feel we need some way to remove these from the 'needs signoff' list to make it more efficient.

Suggestions? Comments? Feelings?

Nicole

_______________________________________________ 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/

_______________________________________________ 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/

I agree with Mirko that we should have clear rules. That's what I found on the Wiki: I think that the Status "In discussion" should be used as it was outlined when it was introduced, see: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug_and_Enhancement_Discussion ---Snip-------- Sometimes, patches or bugs requires some strategic discussion to define the best way to do something. This discussion can be purely technical, or functional. ---End Snip-------- Issues that are not on a strategic level should not go to "In discussion". The possibilities we have right now to switch away from "Need Signoff" are outlined in the Wiki page "Development workflow", see: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Development_workflow ---Snip-------- Failure cases 1. if the 'patch signer' can't test the patch because it does not apply anymore, the status is set to Patch doesn't apply 2. if the 'patch signer' can apply the patch but after some tests sees that there is a functional problem with the patch, the status is set to In Discussion or Failed QA, depending on the kind of the problem the tester has detected. The description from the tester must be as detailed as possible to be able to reproduce the failure. 3. if the 'QA manager' has some objections during the QA process, the status is set to Failed QA (...) ---End Snip-------- And I agree with Katrin that it would be logical to have an additional status as Kyle suggested. I would prefer to call it "Signoff in process" instead of "Failed signoff", because it could cover all the minor things on technical (not strategic) level, e.g. little code glitches, questions, hints, suggestions, things that could be fixed in a follow up etc. In short, it would be something between 'about to fail' and 'about to be saved' :-) The possibilities to switch away from "Signoff in process" would be: - Needs Signoff (minor things resolved, questions answered etc., ready to sign off) - Failed QA (No reaction of author within a certain time, code glitches turn out to be bigger issues...) - In Discussion (for strategical issues / discussions only) The longer I ponder about it the more I think that such a status would be a good tool to streamline the whole bug work flow.