RM and QA roles (important!)
Good morning. I thought about using the subject "In search of lost time," but I decided that was a bad idea given how few people actually manage to get through Proust. I am writing with a discussion question for the community. According to the dashboard, at the moment we have 120 bugs with the status "Needs signoff" (25% of these are classified as "bugs" instead of "enhancements" or "new features") and 94 bugs with the status "Signed off" (50% bugs). 2 bugs have the status "Passed QA" and are waiting for feedback from their authors before I push them. There are two lessons we can learn from these numbers: 1) if everyone currently involved with Koha made a commitment to test two patches in January, we could get through the backlog for 3.12 2) we have a QA bottleneck. Please consider lesson 1, but this e-mail is actually about lesson 2. QA is an inherently time-consuming process, and the pool for QAers is much smaller than that for signing off. I expect that as we approach the deadlines for 3.12 the number of bugs awaiting QA will decrease. Unfortunately, the amount of time I have to deal with those bugs will not increase, even though I am spending somewhat less time than I planned dealing with RM duties this month. So, I come to the community with a question: what would people think of me using that time to QA bugs (as opposed to enhancements/new features) that I was not involved in the authorship or signing off of? I would prefer not to do this, but after a month and a half as RM it seems to me that this might be in the best interest of the community and the best way to release a stable and feature-full 3.12. QAing signed off patches would naturally take a much lower priority for me than addressing patches that have already passed QA, but every patch I QA is a patch that our overworked QA team does not have to QA. Thoughts? Also, on a somewhat-related subject, I will be away from January 25-February 4. Keep that in mind if you intend to have any questions that only the RM can answer at the end of the month. Regards, Jared Camins-Esakov -- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
I certainly see no problem with this course of action. It sounds like time well spent to me! Kyle http://www.kylehall.info ByWater Solutions ( http://bywatersolutions.com ) Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org ) Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org ) Mill Run Technology Solutions ( http://millruntech.com ) On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Jared Camins-Esakov < jcamins@cpbibliography.com> wrote:
Good morning.
I thought about using the subject "In search of lost time," but I decided that was a bad idea given how few people actually manage to get through Proust.
I am writing with a discussion question for the community. According to the dashboard, at the moment we have 120 bugs with the status "Needs signoff" (25% of these are classified as "bugs" instead of "enhancements" or "new features") and 94 bugs with the status "Signed off" (50% bugs). 2 bugs have the status "Passed QA" and are waiting for feedback from their authors before I push them.
There are two lessons we can learn from these numbers: 1) if everyone currently involved with Koha made a commitment to test two patches in January, we could get through the backlog for 3.12 2) we have a QA bottleneck.
Please consider lesson 1, but this e-mail is actually about lesson 2. QA is an inherently time-consuming process, and the pool for QAers is much smaller than that for signing off. I expect that as we approach the deadlines for 3.12 the number of bugs awaiting QA will decrease. Unfortunately, the amount of time I have to deal with those bugs will not increase, even though I am spending somewhat less time than I planned dealing with RM duties this month. So, I come to the community with a question: what would people think of me using that time to QA bugs (as opposed to enhancements/new features) that I was not involved in the authorship or signing off of? I would prefer not to do this, but after a month and a half as RM it seems to me that this might be in the best interest of the community and the best way to release a stable and feature-full 3.12. QAing signed off patches would naturally take a much lower priority for me than addressing patches that have already passed QA, but every patch I QA is a patch that our overworked QA team does not have to QA.
Thoughts?
Also, on a somewhat-related subject, I will be away from January 25-February 4. Keep that in mind if you intend to have any questions that only the RM can answer at the end of the month.
Regards, Jared Camins-Esakov
-- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
_______________________________________________ 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'd obviously prefer not to have one set of eyes less. But if it is just bug fixes to help reduce the bottleneck then I will suspend my objections :) Chris Jared Camins-Esakov <jcamins@cpbibliography.com> wrote:
Good morning.
I thought about using the subject "In search of lost time," but I decided that was a bad idea given how few people actually manage to get through Proust.
I am writing with a discussion question for the community. According to the dashboard, at the moment we have 120 bugs with the status "Needs signoff" (25% of these are classified as "bugs" instead of "enhancements" or "new features") and 94 bugs with the status "Signed off" (50% bugs). 2 bugs have the status "Passed QA" and are waiting for feedback from their authors before I push them.
There are two lessons we can learn from these numbers: 1) if everyone currently involved with Koha made a commitment to test two patches in January, we could get through the backlog for 3.12 2) we have a QA bottleneck.
Please consider lesson 1, but this e-mail is actually about lesson 2. QA is an inherently time-consuming process, and the pool for QAers is much smaller than that for signing off. I expect that as we approach the deadlines for 3.12 the number of bugs awaiting QA will decrease. Unfortunately, the amount of time I have to deal with those bugs will not increase, even though I am spending somewhat less time than I planned dealing with RM duties this month. So, I come to the community with a question: what would people think of me using that time to QA bugs (as opposed to enhancements/new features) that I was not involved in the authorship or signing off of? I would prefer not to do this, but after a month and a half as RM it seems to me that this might be in the best interest of the community and the best way to release a stable and feature-full 3.12. QAing signed off patches would naturally take a much lower priority for me than addressing patches that have already passed QA, but every patch I QA is a patch that our overworked QA team does not have to QA.
Thoughts?
Also, on a somewhat-related subject, I will be away from January 25-February 4. Keep that in mind if you intend to have any questions that only the RM can answer at the end of the month.
Regards, Jared Camins-Esakov
-- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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/
+1 from me Note that we did so too with Paul as RM. Author, signer and RM make at least three sets of eyes. Marcel ________________________________ Van: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] namens Chris Cormack [chrisc@catalyst.net.nz] Verzonden: zondag 13 januari 2013 18:46 To: Jared Camins-Esakov; koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Onderwerp: Re: [Koha-devel] RM and QA roles (important!) I'd obviously prefer not to have one set of eyes less. But if it is just bug fixes to help reduce the bottleneck then I will suspend my objections :) Chris Jared Camins-Esakov <jcamins@cpbibliography.com> wrote: Good morning. I thought about using the subject "In search of lost time," but I decided that was a bad idea given how few people actually manage to get through Proust. I am writing with a discussion question for the community. According to the dashboard, at the moment we have 120 bugs with the status "Needs signoff" (25% of these are classified as "bugs" instead of "enhancements" or "new features") and 94 bugs with the status "Signed off" (50% bugs). 2 bugs have the status "Passed QA" and are waiting for feedback from their authors before I push them. There are two lessons we can learn from these numbers: 1) if everyone currently involved with Koha made a commitment to test two patches in January, we could get through the backlog for 3.12 2) we have a QA bottleneck. Please consider lesson 1, but this e-mail is actually about lesson 2. QA is an inherently time-consuming process, and the pool for QAers is much smaller than that for signing off. I expect that as we approach the deadlines for 3.12 the number of bugs awaiting QA will decrease. Unfortunately, the amount of time I have to deal with those bugs will not increase, even though I am spending somewhat less time than I planned dealing with RM duties this month. So, I come to the community with a question: what would people think of me using that time to QA bugs (as opposed to enhancements/new features) that I was not involved in the authorship or signing off of? I would prefer not to do this, but after a month and a half as RM it seems to me that this might be in the best interest of the community and the best way to release a stable and feature-full 3.12. QAing signed off patches wou ld naturally take a much lower priority for me than addressing patches that have already passed QA, but every patch I QA is a patch that our overworked QA team does not have to QA. Thoughts? Also, on a somewhat-related subject, I will be away from January 25-February 4. Keep that in mind if you intend to have any questions that only the RM can answer at the end of the month. Regards, Jared Camins-Esakov -- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com<mailto:jcamins@cpbibliography.com> (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/ ________________________________ 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 hope now that holidays are over and everyone is back to work we will be able to reduce the bottleneck. That said I see no problem Jared QAing bug fixes, although I think it would be better if we can make use of his time for pushing patches instead :) Katrin Am 13.01.2013 18:46, schrieb Chris Cormack:
I'd obviously prefer not to have one set of eyes less. But if it is just bug fixes to help reduce the bottleneck then I will suspend my objections :)
Chris
Jared Camins-Esakov <jcamins@cpbibliography.com> wrote:
Good morning.
I thought about using the subject "In search of lost time," but I decided that was a bad idea given how few people actually manage to get through Proust.
I am writing with a discussion question for the community. According to the dashboard, at the moment we have 120 bugs with the status "Needs signoff" (25% of these are classified as "bugs" instead of "enhancements" or "new features") and 94 bugs with the status "Signed off" (50% bugs). 2 bugs have the status "Passed QA" and are waiting for feedback from their authors before I push them.
There are two lessons we can learn from these numbers: 1) if everyone currently involved with Koha made a commitment to test two patches in January, we could get through the backlog for 3.12 2) we have a QA bottleneck.
Please consider lesson 1, but this e-mail is actually about lesson 2. QA is an inherently time-consuming process, and the pool for QAers is much smaller than that for signing off. I expect that as we approach the deadlines for 3.12 the number of bugs awaiting QA will decrease. Unfortunately, the amount of time I have to deal with those bugs will not increase, even though I am spending somewhat less time than I planned dealing with RM duties this month. So, I come to the community with a question: what would people think of me using that time to QA bugs (as opposed to enhancements/new features) that I was not involved in the authorship or signing off of? I would prefer not to do this, but after a month and a half as RM it seems to me that this might be in the best interest of the community and the best way to release a stable and feature-full 3.12. QAing signed off patches wou ld naturally take a much lower priority for me than addressing patches that have already passed QA, but every patch I QA is a patch that our overworked QA team does not have to QA.
Thoughts?
Also, on a somewhat-related subject, I will be away from January 25-February 4. Keep that in mind if you intend to have any questions that only the RM can answer at the end of the month.
Regards, Jared Camins-Esakov
-- Jared Camins-Esakov Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 (e-mail) jcamins@cpbibliography.com <mailto:jcamins@cpbibliography.com> (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
Le 13/01/2013 15:29, Jared Camins-Esakov a écrit :
Please consider lesson 1, but this e-mail is actually about lesson 2. QA is an inherently time-consuming process, and the pool for QAers is much smaller than that for signing off. I expect that as we approach the deadlines for 3.12 the number of bugs awaiting QA will decrease.
Hi Jared, This morning, while I was under my shower, I was thinking of this problem. I can't dedicate as much time as I'd like (I've a business to run, hdl has left now). Jonathan does a great job, but we (BibLibre) can't do everything. So I'm very happy with this mail !!! lesson 1= Everybody should also realize that having patches waiting for signoff for more than 3 months results in rebase needed. And rebase needed result in time consuming, that could be used elsewhere. Last week, the 10 oldest bugs where all enhancements waiting for more than 4 months. 8 where from BibLibre, 5 have been rebased, Julian spent around 6 hours to do that. Hours that could have been used to signoff someone else patch. I don't know what to do with this situation, I just can say that it's unefficient. If someone has a suggestion... (I made some, months/years ago. You know my opinion, I know many of you disagree, but any proposal would be carefully examined by me, for sure !) lesson 1 (again)= I've started last week to send an email to some french librarians that were at the hackfest, and have a personal sandbox (that BibLibre setup for them). In this mail, I point 10 of the oldest patches that they could signoff. I hope it will produce some results. I'll do that for at least 2 months, then see if the effort produces some effect. lesson 2= +1 to have you QAing patches, of course. That's how I made it last year, I think 3.10 was pretty stable. I'm sure you'll be wise enough to know which patch would be worth having another set of eyes, and ask the QA team. PS: I see on the signed-off list that 1/3 of patches don't have a complexity set. That's a shame, because "trivial" and "small patches" could be QAed by you fist. -- Paul POULAIN - BibLibre http://www.biblibre.com Free & Open Source Softwares for libraries Koha, Drupal, Piwik, Jasper
participants (7)
-
Chris Cormack -
Jared Camins-Esakov -
Katrin Fischer -
Kyle Hall -
Marcel de Rooy -
Nicole Engard -
Paul Poulain