[Koha-devel] Post-3.0 git branch and version numbering

[Henri-Damien LAURENT]

Galen Charlton a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Henri-Damien LAURENT
> <laurenthdl at alinto.com> wrote:
>   
>> As far as we (BibLibre) are concerned, even though it was talked about
>> a while back, we are in fact not candidate for the QA management
>> position in 3.2. So the position is indeed open: anyone volunteering ?
>>     
> Joshua may be a volunteer; I'll let him toss his hat in the ring
> directly if he chooses.
Would Joshua be volunteer both for QA and Release Maintainer ?
>   But going beyond the QA position, I would be
> interested in setting up a mechanism for distributing the review and
> signoff of important patches across as many contributors as are
> willing to do it, which might ease the burden on the QA manager a bit.
>   
Good Idea.
>> But I'm really willing to be Release Maintainer for 3.0.
>>     
>
> Great.  What are your plans (roughly speaking) for maintaining 3.0.x?
>   
Stay tuned for bugs on rel30 and HEAD, and keep track of those who are 
on both versions.
File bugs when they are only sent on lists.
cherry pick patches which adress rel30 bugs.
If a patch is sent related to branch 3.0, then resend the patch for 
branch3.1
In that purpose, maybe building a smolder server for 3.0 and revive 
information nightly could be good.
Or maybe I could use Andrew's one if allowed.

Comments welcome.
>> We fully support what Chris said about the roles being spread around as many
>> organisations as possible.
>> By the same token we support his candidacy to be the translation manager.
>>     
> As do we.
>   
>> But I also think we should be clear about what those positions would mean.
>> Specifically, these roles (Q&A, RM for 3.1, RMaint for 3.0,
>> Translation) should have ssh access to the git repository via a key so
>> that they can do what their position requires them to do, with
>> sign-off of their commits so that RM can be informed in real time of
>> what has been done.
>>     
>
> This can be done on a branch-by-branch basis.  In other words, we can
> set it up so that the 3.0 maintainer can push directly to the 3.0.x
> branch.
>   
OK then for Release Maintainer.
What about QA manager for position, if he were outside from Liblime and 
BibLibre ?
Chris spoke his plans on Translation.
Having a website where patches would be fetched by RM seems to me a 
solution which will make the RM task heavier and quite tricky if some 
patches are to be replaced, or updated. Would it not be easier if he 
could push sthg on his remote branch with signing-off his patches, same 
for QA ? And then, RM would just have to merge those remote branches.

my 2 cts.
-- 
Henri-Damien LAURENT


_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel at nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel